Disqus

Friday, November 08, 2019

Friday Open Thread

From Crosscut, WA state is having trouble finding enough Special Education teachers.

The Washington Professional Educator Standards Board, or PESB, found that, although the number of teachers hired by Washington schools has grown since 2010-11, the number of candidates completing teacher preparation programs has remained stagnant.

Data in a 75-page PESB report released in March show a 309% jump in the number of conditional and emergency teaching licenses issued by the state in the decade preceding the 2017-18 school year. The writers of the report pointed to this increase as further evidence of a teacher shortage.

A shortage of special education teachers is particularly acute, and presents extraordinary challenges. As Washington contends with a sparse teaching force, the number of students requiring special education services is growing rapidly.
 Italy to become first country to make learning about climate change compulsory for school students.
From CNN:
From next year, Italian school students in every grade will be required to study climate change and sustainability, in an attempt to position the country as a world leader in environmental education.
Education Minister Lorenzo Fioramonti, of the anti-establishment Five Star Movement, said all public schools will include about 33 hours a year in their curricula to study issues linked to climate change.

The lessons will be built into existing civics classes, which will have an "environmentalist footprint" from September 2020, Vincenzo Cramarossa, Fioramonti's spokesman, told CNN. 
Bravo, Italia!

Speaking of Italy, the Seattle International Film Festival has started its mini-festival of Italian films.  There are two of note, with the main characters having Down Syndrome and the actors who portray those characters have Down Syndrome.  The first one is My Brother Chases Dinosaurs, tonight at the Uptown Cinema and the other is Dafne.

In other states' election results, Denver SD, which had been a hot-bed for ed reform, found candidates aligned in that direction defeated at the polls.   From the blog Chalkbeat:
Instead of five members backed by pro-reform organizations and two backed by the teachers union, the seven-member board will now feature five members backed by the teachers union: Jennifer Bacon and Carrie Olson, who won seats in 2017, and Tay Anderson, Scott Baldermann, and Brad Laurvick, who won seats this week.
Some see the election results as a rejection of big money. For several years, deep-pocketed donors and national organizations with local chapters, such as Stand for Children, have outspent the teachers union to support candidates more favorable to reform.

“Voters are tired of seeing outside influence manipulating local politics like our school board,” said Elsa Rocha, executive director of the Padres & J√≥venes Unidos Action Fund, a new political committee opposed to reform that grew out of a longstanding Denver advocacy group. “This is a way for voters and community folks to be like, ‘Enough is enough.’”
Pondering what change for Advanced Learning might look like?  Here's Kent SD's page on Highly Capable services.

Middle Schooler’s Invention Seeks to Correct Blind Spots; Wins $25,000 Top Award in the National Broadcom MASTERS Competition: Girls Shine in Broadcom MASTERS, Winning Top Five Awards

From Society for Science and the Public

Through her project, Alaina Gassler is seeking to make driving safer by reducing blind spots. She designed a system that uses a webcam to display anything that might block the driver’s line of sight. Alaina was inspired to create her device after seeing her mother struggle with blind spots in their family automobile.
And she's not even old enough to drive.

What's on your mind?

92 comments:

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

While I am sorry that Eric was not elected, Liza is not necessarily a bad choice. This year, District 1 had two good choices. I was so glad I didn't have to choose from the lesser of two, instead I got to choose from two good choices. I hope that Eric will continue to offer his expertise and knowledge, and I hope that Liza will listen to all parents and push back on staff when necessary.

HP

Anonymous said...

Liza does not seem to have either have a mind of her own, or the courage needed to speak when she disagrees with the loudest voices in the room. Watch out Liza they will call you names (the horror) like racist if you don't nod like a bobblehead.

My opinion

Anonymous said...

I like Director Hersey's passion, but am disappointed to see him appear to be completely willing to govern by emotion and philosophy rather than also insisting upon details and logic. We don't need Spock in the chair, but we do need people willing to ask questions about the details and feasibility of projects and plans. I understand that there is some urgency to the need for change, so I would suggest that means there is therefore an urgent need for planning. An urgent need to develop a sound plan that can be implemented smoothly, rather than quickly implementing a flawed plan that will create turmoil and bog us down for years. It's kind of like the measure twice, cut once mantra. Let's measure twice (but quickly and efficiently), the implement once (effectively). No more typical SPS "OMG, we have to do this now, I know it's flawed but something is better than nothing, even if it means we'll struggle to fix the something for years and years." There is no reason people can't sit down and come up with a good comprehensive plan on TAF or HCC or whatever the issue--unless it's too complex to make it work, in which case back-of-the-envelope approaches probably aren't the bet bet.

Geary seems earnest, but completely willing to throw any group under the bus if it suits her interests. The opinions of some parents--entire categories of parents--don't seem to mean anything to her, IMHO. She essentially said (as I interpreted it) that HC parents can go screw themselves, because the district is in a hurry to move forward, didn't bother to engage them before hand, and while they recognize there's an inherent conflict in the TAF-WMS-HCC placement issue, the needs of HC students don't really concern her. HC students seem to be an inconvenient nuisance, not students also deserving a good education.

As for DeWolf, man, that guy seems happy to repeat any half-truth or inaccuracy he can if he thinks it supports his point. It's hard for me to trust a word he says.

sheep's clothing

Melissa Westbrook said...

Sheep's Clothing, I have been sent a copy of an internal review of one department in SPS and it echoes some of your feeling about the district and its issues. Thread to come soon.

Anonymous said...

Geary also made some really crappy statements at a board meeting a couple years ago where she stated something to the effect " SPS does not have to provide a great education to all kids". It was in response to parents concerns about an appropriate education being offered at a new school that was opening. Her sentiment seemed to suggest that SPS only has to provide a great education for those kids below standard.

Glad she's going

Anonymous said...

Looks like we're getting another rubber stamping school board. Rankin and Hampson were on the SCPTSA that had a hand in the strategic plan. No peep from either about any of Juneau's screwups like this year's enrollment projections or the WMS principal or Licton Springs. Both supported Amplify and seem to be anti-HCC, like Juneau. There's no sign they will hold Juneau in check on anything. Dewolf will join them and probably Hersey. I don't know about the others. Seems like a return to the Maier, Sundquist, Carr, Debell, Martin-Morris rubber stampers of the past. That's bad news.

History repeats

Blame HCC said...

District staff used to get upset if Directors didn't run proposals through staff. Geary's amendment didn't have a single cost associated with the proposal. Expenditure and revenue source, according to the amendment, was N/A. Yet, we had Geary, DeWolf and Hersey voting for a half baked amendment.

There wasn't a single staff complaint.


https://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/School%20Board/19-20%20agendas/November%206/A05_20191106_Amen



Anonymous said...

"am disappointed to see him appear to be completely willing to govern by emotion and philosophy rather than also insisting upon details and logic."

What an incredibly insulting comment. Just because he disagrees with you doesn't make him illogical.

Next

Anonymous said...

@ Next,
That was a typo. It should have read “logistics.” Thank you for calling it to my attention..

sheep’s clothing

Anonymous said...

So De Wolf was very angry & emotional calling out segregation in HCC at Whitman. I think he said that 20 white kids should give up their HCC seats to 20 black kids. (not sure exactly the quote because he was interrupted by Harris.)


Yet he said nothing, when Geary went on & on about 'basic floor of educational opportunity' which has been used to illegally discriminate against sped students for years in this district. Geary even said that 'We always tell our special ed families this', meaning that it is still policy or at least still happening regularly. I realize that some board members might wait for a private moment to correct another board member instead of calling out at the meeting. But not de Wolf. He was calling out discrimination very forcefully when he sees it in HCC but not in sped when discrimination was actively promoted as district policy right from the dias. Crickets. Even Juneau was calling out discrimination in HCC but crickets when Geary said that about sped.

To use that standard of basic floor of educational opportunity is 'not even an education at all' according to a unanimous ruling of the supreme court.


It's been a while since I watched a board meeting. I probably shouldn't watch any more board meetings.

-sped parent


Anonymous said...

So De Wolf was very angry & emotional calling out segregation in HCC at Whitman. I think he said that 20 white kids should give up their HCC seats to 20 black kids. (not sure exactly the quote because he was interrupted by Harris.)

HCC seats aren't limited, are they? I don't think 20 "white" kids would need to give up their seats in order for 20 black kids to join. If there are 20 black students at Whitman who should be in HCC but aren't, why not just put them in HCC (if they want it)?

unclear

Anonymous said...

sped parent, can you please clarify how the "basic floor of educational opportunity" represents illegal discrimination? It's not clear to me, and might not also be clear to others not familiar with sped services and requirements. Thank you.

unclear

Anonymous said...

Is Whitman an HCC pathway?

confused

Anonymous said...

Unclear,

Those words are the common language used to describe a legal standard for students with disabilities stemming from a supreme court case in the 80's, where parents sued a district when their deaf 1st grader was denied a sign language interpreter because she was above academic standard. The court ruled for the district saying that the district did not need to do more than the minimum for a student protected under disability law. Further court cases established the language of de minimus, trivial amount and basic floor of educational opportunity.

Our district, along with many across the country, have used that standard to justify denying sped services and access. They claim that they only have to do something above absolute minimum and no more. Two years ago, that standard was overturned in a unanimous decision by the supreme court saying that such a minimal standard was not an education at all. The new legal standard for students with disabilities includes language like 'at least the growth must be appropriately ambitious and offering the chance to meet challenging objectives', "goal of one year of academic growth in a school year', etc.



-sped parent

Anonymous said...

Exit Geary, thankfully.

Why does this blog keep conflating Geary with Juneau?

It is an unsupported attempt to make them into "a squad" in an apparent Trump move.

That way, Juneau can be the bogeywoman instead of the advocate for educational justice.

Lame

Melissa Westbrook said...

1) "This blog" or a couple of readers? Because I'm not conflating them but they seem to be on the same track (with Geary having a sense of urgency because she's out the door in less than a month).
2) Hilarious - talking about how some Board members will vote is a Trump move? Please.
3) Juneau is not a bogeywoman. She is an advocate for "educational justice" but she's taking a negative, divisive way to do it. Not good. However,
4) a smart leader wouldn't do that. Someone on their way up would.

Anonymous said...

Melissa: "Yes, Juneau and Geary seeming to want to lower the floor to some baseline education standard is weird." From Wa. Middle School thread

Yes, there's a pattern on this blog of stringing their names together. My opinion is that it's to diminish Juneau.

It seems as though greater Seattle doesn't find Juneau divisive. The board elections were won by those who support her agenda.

p.s. John Stanford was on his way up, too. The quality ones seem to be.

Lame

Melissa Westbrook said...

Lame, that was one time. A little paranoia there?

And when did "greater Seattle" take your poll?

The board elections were won by those who support her agenda? Well, two of the four were. Harris is independent and, listening to Rivera Smith, so is she. Plus, if DeWolf decides (again) to try and cut and run for some bigger, better job.

You can see how there are different ways to view any given situation.

Anonymous said...

"Paranoia"? Interesting tone. Sped also conflated them on the same thread.

Trends are trends. A board incumbant who is president and recently approved Amplify and now speaks "woke" gets reelected?

Lindsey Graham is a apt analogy, albeit a different political affiliation.

There's a new trend in town.

Where's the thread
congratulating the new board members? Welcome, new members!

Lame

Melissa Westbrook said...

Lame, you have clearly made the point you need to make. Move on.

Also, I congratulate new directors when they take the oath of office. I did that for Director Hersey (and took the first photo of him alone as a director).

Anonymous said...

sped parent. You are sorely mistaken. The standard for sped still is a floor of basic opportunity. That wasn't overturned. The Endrew decision, you keep reciting, simply entitles your kid to more than de minimis. Eg. More than nothing. The Supremes soundly rejected the idea that students with disabilities get what most of us want, an equal opportunity for something of quality. No such luck. In fact the court actually upheld Rowley's standard, specifically, a floor of opportunity. To them, the education a generation ago provided to Rowley, meeting the floor of opportunity, is exactly what they had in mind. Since Rowley, a variety of circuit courts have equated the "floor of opportunity" to mean "some educational benefit", and then later to mean "some educational benefit that is merely more than de minimus." Endrew overturned the de minimis which crept in over the years. The floor of opportunity is now a little higher.

-Another Sped Parent

From the actual opinion at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf

Court went on to reject the “equal opportunity” standard adopted by the lower courts, concluding that “free appropriate public education” was a phrase “too complex to be captured by the word ‘equal’ whether one is speaking of opportunities or services.” []We explained that this requirement is satisfied, and a child has received a FAPE, if the child’s IEP sets out an educational program that is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” [] In view of Amy Rowley’s excellent progress and the “substantial” suite of specialized instruction and services offered in her IEP, we concluded that her program satisfied the FAPE requirement.[] To meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances[] To meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.

Anonymous said...


I agree that the new surpeme court ruling did not guarantee an equal educational opportunity for special ed.

However the language of 'basic floor of educational opportunity' is the exact language used in Rowley to deny the sign language interpreter. It refers to the house debate about initial FAPE legislation. That phrase is not upheld in Endrew. It is not used at all in Endrew. When people use that phrase they are referring to the standard set by Rowley, the ONLY case where it was used in the decision, that refers to de minimis.

In our district basic floor of opportunity means, "no" . "No you will not get appropriate reading instruction for dyslexia", "no you will not get a note taker to allow you to attend gen ed biology class", "No you will not get an IA to go on that field trip so you can go too." "because we in SPS are only required to provide a basic floor of educational opportunity", or de minimis. It has been used that way since the Rowley decision.

If the district wanted to refer to the new decision they would use the words "appropriately ambitious" & "every child will have the chance to meet challenging objectives". Those are the word used to describe the standards in Endrew.

-sped parent

Anonymous said...

I appreciate the discussion around expectations for Special education students. And considering that the poor special education services are the shame of the district it is a little disturbing that is held up by Geary as a goal.

I think that Rick Burke's question is a good one. What should people be able to expect from their child's education? What if their child is behind or struggling with something? What if their child is ahead in an area and bored? I remember a friend was told by a high school teach to get a tutor for their child. I remember kids coming to school without homework because they were living in a car. I remember a kid sitting in the back of 6th grade math class working through a college calculus book. So what should we expect?

Maybe the district should answer that.

-HS Parent1

Melissa Westbrook said...

HS Parent 1, I have been seeing an uptick of articles about states defining what basic education should be. I'll try to find some of them and start a new post.

Anonymous said...

It probably varies within SPS district, but what we are told at our school is that a year's worth of growth is the expectation. Doesn't matter where you start, the goal is a year's growth. What does that really mean in practice and how do you measure that are all good questions, but I know we are evaluated on how many kids make a years worth of growth.
SPS Teacher

Anonymous said...

Sped parent

The standards went from “something merely above de minimum” to “reasonably calculated to make progress”. Eg. From “nothing” to “something”. There’s still a floor of opportunity, there’s still no Cadillac. And, more importantly, it’s still nearly impossible to prove how much is “reasonably calculated” in all but the most egregious cases of neglect. As to the phrase “appropriately ambitious” and “challenging objectives”.... you left off the kicker: “in light of the child’s unique circumstances”.... Eg it’s still a judgement call with much deference to the district in limiting the degree to “ambition”.

Here’s what the court did say about Rowley retrospectively

In view of Amy Rowley’s excellent progress and the “substantial” suite of specialized instruction and services offered in her IEP, we concluded that her program satis- fied the FAPE requirement. Id., at 202.


In other words, she got what she was supposed to, a floor of opportunity... an amplifier not an interpreter. but Endrew didn’t even get that because his district offered him “merely more than de minimum.” He was entitled to something, according to the court.

You can and absolutely should be able to get 1). notes from the teacher or IA, 2). assistance for field trips if necessary. As to dyslexia, is the child making any progress? Notes from the teacher can even be gotten from a 504 plan, which is a whole different law, ADA. Reading curricula are tough because experts don’t agree on efficacy. The district isn’t obligated to pick the parents recommendation. There’s legal relief for the notes and field trips, with plenty of precedence. Moving the needle on the dyslexia requires a cultural sea change though... from do-the-minimum neglect to actually giving a hoot...

Another Sped Parent

Anonymous said...

@ SPS Teacher,
You said that what teachers “are told at our school is that a year's worth of growth is the expectation. Doesn't matter where you start, the goal is a year's growth.” You also said you know you “are evaluated on how many kids make a years worth of growth.”

From what I’ve been told by SPS, I don’t think that’s completely accurate. My understanding is that the growth assessment is done via something like the SBAC.

A student scoring at grade level in 3rd grade, then again at grade level in 4th grade, is considered to have made a year of growth that year. A student scoring below grade level with a 2 one year, then another 2 the following year on the next-higher-grade exam, also demonstrates a year of progress by maintaining a 2 on material a year more advanced.

However, this logic breaks down for kids scoring abovegrade level, because we don’t know how far they are above grade level. Scoring a 4 in consecutive years does. It mean you’ve learned a year’s worth of material/skills—it may just mean you were many years ahead to start. A very advanced 3rd grade student, for example, might be able to sit and take their current grade level SBAC, as well as the 4th and 5th grade SBACs, and get 4s in all. If so, that 4th grade SBAC the following year means nothing when it comes to showing actual growth.

Our system is not really designed to promote or measure growth at the upper end. There is also little incentive to do so, as it would not only highlight the size of the gap between our highest and lowest scoring students, but also call attention to any failures to provide growth in the highest performing students.

I guess you could conceivably look more longitudinally, and assume that a kid scoring 4s in 1st grade and consistently doing so through 11th grade must be making, on average, a year if growth each year, but I don’t think that’s how it works.

HF

Anonymous said...

@HF

Teachers of students under third grade don't even use the SBAC. Teachers who do don't get the results back until the school year is almost over.

But, yes, teachers are continually keeping track of student growth, through unit tests, continuums rubrics, alternative testing, etc.

We are fully charged with having ALL students make at least a year's growth. Teachers are actually trained outside to do assessments outside of the SBAC.

Students who are HC do better in their neighborhood schools than in the cohort. Rationalizations aside, data is data. Maybe you can find out how the district assembled this data.

Like all types, you have been a longtime HCC advocate on this blog. As such, I always read your comments through that lens.

Another Teacher

Anonymous said...

Sent from phone re typos.

Teachers are trained to do assessments well beyond the SBAC.

A.T.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Rationalizations aside, data is data. Maybe you can find out how the district assembled this data."

"Data is data" - that's adorable. Because you can massage, overstate, ignore, hide all kinds of data. And yes, that stat has always been off to me and I might ask about it.

Anonymous said...

Students who are HC do better in their neighborhood schools than in the cohort.

There's absolutely no way you are the district can make that claim. It is purely subjective and would require a similar testing for similar grade material taught that year. That just doesn't happen in Seattle. HTC kids take the SBAC for classes they took two years prior. Duh that's not going to work. HCC kids go to schools with cohorts for a reason. So now you have a selection bias. Different tests for subject matter covered and selection bias. Finally are you claiming that kids at Roosevelt are doing just as well as kids at Garfield even though they were identified as HC. Well of course they would if you just consider commuting times and a fact that those schools are almost identical when it comes to AP offerings.

The claim that HC students are doing better at their neighborhood schools. Hasn't been tested, isn't done longitudinally and has way too many biases to even be considered. Stop the lies and misrepresentations people. Kari Hanson and wyeth Jesse have them making that claim unsupported for years. Please open your eyes Juneaubots. Reed the honors for all review. 4 years in they finally admit they can't do it. It's too difficult. That doesn't matter if you're a freshman or no sophomore that's what you get at GHS. And you're getting it in middle School too now for social studies. Well done Juneau bots.

Peaches pit

Anonymous said...

Sorry for all the typos. Or perhaps you're looking at Meany HC kids versus Washington kids after last year's debacle. For the fact that neighborhood classes are hardly ever splits or as crowded as HCC classes.

Peaches pit

Anonymous said...

If there's no data showing that HC kids do better in the neighborhood schools... that means there's no data. If there's no data, then there's also no data showing that they do better with the segregation, eg, in the cohort. I believe there's no data. Or, practically no data. So, why give special privileges if there's no data? oh yeah. Nobody cares about data supporting the extra privileges.

reader

Anonymous said...

Because research from outside of SPS shows this is best practice for highly capable learners. That's what we're supposed to use. Research supported best practice.

SPS wonk

Anonymous said...

The research shows this for actual HC but the practice in SPS, with 50% admitted by private appeals, isn't delivering. It's a watered down cohort with frequent complaints about rugor.

The NMSF results are pathetic compared to neighboring districts.

Sham

Anonymous said...

Reader,

There are NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES in HCC. Usually high class sizes, usually no appropriate curriculum, most of the buildings have been sub-par (until the opening of RESM), and usually having to travel farther to their schools.

Teaching a student fractions - or any other math concept - when they are ready for it is not a special privilege. Spending much less time per concept because the class learns quickly is not a privilege.

Using literature that's more challenging when students are ready for it is not a special privilege.

Giving a student more challenging coursework because they are ready for it is not a privilege.

Momof2

Anonymous said...

Reader. Very hypocritical. You've advocated for a truly eltist School. I'm sure you would have picketed Stanford educational center if your kid had to go to Washington middle School last year.

Tell the truth first to yourself so your post actually read with honor.

Gizmo girl

Anonymous said...

@HF. It probably depends on the school, but we aren’t encouraged to use SBAC or MAP as a measure of a years growth for exactly the reason you stated. High achievers, whether they are in AL or not, frequently score at the 98 or 99 percentile on a test like MAP at the beginning and end of the year. You can’t use those tests to show that kind of growth. Instead you have to use other types of measure. We’re encouraged by the eval rubric to use multiple measures to show a child’s growth. I made my original comment in response to the question about “ what should parents expect from their child’s education.” I think parents should expect a year’s growth. Having said that, I don’t think that always happens for all kids for a multitude of reasons. I also think that getting rid of HCC will make it even more challenging.
I work really hard to make sure my kids make a years worth of growth, but I’m only one person. The more levels there are in my class, the harder it is.
SPS Teacher



Anonymous said...

@ SPS Teacher, thank you for your follow up, and for your hard work to try to ensure a year of growth for all students. I can imagine that it’s a challenge—even with your apparent dedication—and I can see how the loss of HCC would compound things.

In our experience, few teachers worked to ensure such growth. Acing the pre-unit tests had no bearing on how the unit was taught—same stuff covered, similar test at end of unit. Nothing new learned. That happened in multiple grades and subjects. Reading at the highest level “allowe” for that grade? Sorry—can’t go harder. And so on. Teachers were under the bizarre impression that by not allowing harder work one year, they were preserving learning opportunities for future years. Bizarre logic.

HF

Anonymous said...

@HF. Sorry to hear that. Was your experience different in HCC? How did they handle the difference in ability/skill level in the class?
SPS Teacher

Anonymous said...

Anything positive about gen ed will be met with confirmation bias on this front, SPS Teacher. Don't forget that HF has been posting about preserving the ineffective HCC for years here.

1% self contained is plenty.
The program is bloated, segregated by demographics and ineffective.

The HCC blog is inundated with complaints about the cohort. They like to "keep it in the family" and go all-out to maintain the program when speaking to the rest of us.

Lame

Melissa Westbrook said...

Just to note, the district - no matter how they change HCC - will keep some degree of cohort and likely pathway schools. It will be interesting if the changes the district does make will be enough for the anti-HCC crowd.

I say that because I think that some parents would point to the state mandate for services and the State will not find sending all of the HCC back to their schools into classes where "differentiation" is the service.

Meaning, SPS wants to stay out of court and the best way to do that is to keep some small cohort. That's what I believe will happen.

Anonymous said...

Any word on how the K-12 science curriculum implementation is going and Amplify? It was such a big fiasco earlier this year and now there's silence. I saw one parent posted here some weeks ago that their kid had to rub a virtual scarf against a virtual balloon to learn about static electricity...?! Is that what our kids can expect from this new online science?

Science curious

Anonymous said...

When you come in at the beginning of the year, how do you test the top students to know where to begin? Do you give them an end of the year test for the grade you teach and, if they ace that, give them an end of the year test for the next grade, until you finally find what grade level to start with? What do you do if your student is at a higher level of math than you are?

Anonymous said...

I have noticed that most of Rankin and Hampson's enthusiastic supporters are rich white people living in areas with high income high schools with tons of AP courses. Melissa has said that she thinks that all of the high schools will lose their AP offerings, so the rich kids will be just as bad off as the low income HCC kids, but I don't think that's going to happen. Rankin and Hampson would never do that to their friends. I don't think that the Rankin supporters think they are supporting the eradication of HCC because it will benefit their kids. I think they tell themselves they're supporting equity. But in fact their kids will be the only kids that win. They are always the people who win. TCG is being played.

-BM

Melissa Westbrook said...

Anonymous, we don't take anonymous comments. Try again with a name or moniker. And most of your questions can be answered at the SPS website.

BM, you said:
"I have noticed that most of Rankin and Hampson's enthusiastic supporters are rich white people living in areas with high income high schools with tons of AP courses."

And you know this how?

Melissa has said that she thinks that all of the high schools will lose their AP offerings, so the rich kids will be just as bad off as the low income HCC kids, but I don't think that's going to happen.

Never said that. Ever. I agreed with others that it is likely - in the name of equity and costs - that it would be likely there would be fewer offerings at some schools (like Garfield).

As for your supposition about Rankin, Hampson and TCG, I can't say what they truly care about.

But I know this district and I would be willing to bet that many people who have only an equity lens by which to view progress in this district are going to be mighty surprised/upset when some at JSCEE do not support all their initiatives.

I do think the day that Juneau and Hampson have a stare-down will be interesting.

Anonymous said...

@SPS Teacher, TBH, I didn't notice much difference in the amount of differentiation in HCC. If anything, maybe less? But I'm speaking mostly of middle school. The curriculum itself (when there was one) was "differentiated" in that if was a couple years ahead, but it is not necessarily more "advanced" in terms of depth, breadth, or complexity. My impression was that HCC teachers assumed that covering the material a couple years earlier was sufficient, so they didn't need to do actual in-class differentiation. We did have one teacher who went out of his way to try to create a more accommodating situation for doing some independent advanced work, but the principal shot that down. Other teachers bristled at students who when broader and deeper at home and then tried to bring that learning into class discussions, because it was outside the scope of their lessons. We also found that many HCC teachers, like all SPS teachers, were overburdened by large class sizes and thus unable to provide personal attention to students. That not only impacted ability to differentiate, but also to fully recognize and/or inform parents about challenges happening in the classroom, which in our case led to costly delays in a learning disability diagnosis.

HF

Anonymous said...

@ Lame. I've routinely posted comments both supportive of and critical of HCC. I believe HC services are essential to the well-being and development of many students, and I do not, based on many years of experience with multiple children, believe HC students are well-served in most (but not all) GE settings. This may be especially true in SPS (we had better luck elsewhere), so unless/until SPS can come up with something better, I fully support HCC. An imperfect program is better than nothing. I do not like the racial--and, I would add, income--disparities in HCC, and have advocated for more intensive work to help underrepresented students qualify for HCC for years. I do not like the lack of an appropriate curriculum and approach, and would like to see one more consistent with the learning styles of gifted students (which would also make it a better fit for underidentifed gifted minority students, since it would be less prior-achievement based). I do not like that HCC teachers often have little to no experience with gifted students, and are at times openly hostile to them (in our experience). I am not a huge fan of the current eligibility criteria and tests used and cut-offs and SPS testing and annual retesting, but I'm not sure what the answer is given current funding constraints. I AM, however, a supporter of private testing for appeals, since even though my own kiddos qualified for HCC based on SPS testing and no test prep, I know there are others with learning issues who would be wrongly excluded from an appropriate HCC placement without it.

One of my biggest complaints about HCC is that it lacks clarity about what it's trying to be--is it a program for high-achieving students, or highly capable/academically gifted students. I think the state legislature is partly to blame, as the wording of the mandate also conflates the two. However, if you are going to actually design and provide effective services, you need more clarity about what you're trying to do. My personal preference (as if that matters) would be for a true gifted program that works with these less typical students who often have very different educational needs. This would be smaller, but probably more challenging and expensive to implement. SPS's approach is instead more achievement-based, which allows them to use more basic test scores for qualification and then stick with the GE curriculum, just a little accelerated. While this is not my preferred approach, in the absence of a better option I support it--because there are kids who absolutely need access to something besides GE.

If you're going to try to diss me for supporting HCC, at least try to be fair. I have been fair and balanced over the years, calling attention to its pros and cons. I have also spoken out about the occasional GE teacher who was helpful. I have no interest in preserving HCC for HCC's sake--only in preserving some sort of reasonably appropriate services for HC students who desperately need them. I also have no interest in throwing my support behind whatever new HC services the district is planning until there is sufficient information available on which to assess the plan, which does not yet seem to be a comprehensive plan in the least.

HF

Anonymous said...

Repeating for anonymous, who asked, I assume to the teachers who try to ensure a year of growth even for HC students:

When you come in at the beginning of the year, how do you test the top students to know where to begin? Do you give them an end of the year test for the grade you teach and, if they ace that, give them an end of the year test for the next grade, until you finally find what grade level to start with? What do you do if your student is at a higher level of math than you are?

HF

Anonymous said...

"Meaning, SPS wants to stay out of court and the best way to do that is to keep some small cohort.

Or there's also this plausible explanation:

There are many dedicated staff who know that true outliers need self-contained for gifted services. After all, they have made a career of education and may actually care about students. Shocker!

That doesn't fit the blog narrative though, does it? This is all about protecting the privileged.

Interesting analysis, BM. On the other hand, it has usually taken powerful allies to make progressive change happen throughout history.

Regardless, this HCC program is a disgrace in its current form and inevitably needed a huge overhaul. Took the perfect storm to happen.

Lame

Anonymous said...

@BM I agree with you. The disenfranchised don't seem to be driving this policy decision, it's the opposite. IMO it's a game of smoke and mirrors, using equity as a buzzword to tie into the strategic plan idea. It also placates some social justice minded people who care about racism but are not reflecting about it all very deeply and how it is helpful for kids furthest from educational justice. It benefits the superintendent and some board candidates.

That being said, if most of the HC kids remained or returned to neighborhood schools in some north end neighborhoods there will be a large group. I don't think a teacher is teaching as many levels in those neighborhoods, as some areas of the city. It may not make as big of a difference at some schools that also have tons of spectrum eligible students. In some cases I think you have some schools where spectrum and HC testing kids could comprise half the population.

But we will see what happens as simultaneously they did remove walk to math and other differentiation opportunities.

The top 1% of kids in areas with few other kids will likely still have some sort of cohort, maybe they will allow them to attend a school with higher populations. Curious as to how it will work in areas without many HC students.

Jane

Anonymous said...

@Another Teacher and reader,

Do you really want to talk about that old HCC evaluation report again? If so, we can go through all the ways in which is was flawed. But two more general notes:

1. Data may be data, but data are just pieces of information. How you interpret the data to make sense of them is what's key. Often the numbers don't really tell you what they would seem to on the surface, and sometimes you find that they only raise new questions--questions that need to be answered before you can interpret the data in any meaningful way.

2. External evaluations, even those done by universities, can be flawed, incomplete, misleading, etc. Many factors can affect the quality of an evaluation, including funding limitations, timeline, access to data, politics, stakeholder engagement, etc. Sometimes the client paying for the evaluation isn't even all that interested in digging too deep--they just need something that can please whoever wants to see the evaluation. When I first read that old evaluation report, I was struck by how many things could have quite reasonably been interpreted to show something other than what was stated in the evaluation report. It's hard for an evaluator to come in and get the full story, and often they miss or misinterpret things. Relying on SPS to help them get it all straight wouldn't have done the trick, then or now.

HF

Anonymous said...

@Jane

Do you know the superintendent's bio? She's Native American and has been on reservations. Do you have any idea how this has likely informed her dedication to educational justice? Have you spent any length of time living in/around extreme poverty among the underserved children in the United States, as one who shares their background?

Such flippant dismissal of a person's actual experience on this blog continues to reveal profound privilege in the writers themselves.

Lame

Anonymous said...

Where's the data supporting the efficacy of HCC, HF? Is it the SPS NMSF numbers? I remember how eager you were to get the results here recently. Then...crickets from you.

Data This

Melissa Westbrook said...

"One of my biggest complaints about HCC is that it lacks clarity about what it's trying to be--is it a program for high-achieving students, or highly capable/academically gifted students?"

Excellent point.

"There are many dedicated staff who know that true outliers need self-contained for gifted services."

And there are many staff in schools, including teachers and principal, who just don't care and find these kids annoying.

And yet the Superintendent tossed out the decades-old partnership with UNEA. And is summarily moving Licton Springs K-8 - which is sited at... Licton Springs - to far away Ballard. So sure, she knows Native American issues; I'm not sure she is willing to listen to all NA parents and community. That much is clear.

Anonymous said...

A strong leader actually makes decisions and not everyone will be pleased. Imagine that!

Gee, maybe Juneau found some serious issues with UNEA in terms of contracts. Had she not acted, she'd be in violation of state law. I guess she's just funny that way!

But use that to pretend she's not working for educational justice...

Backbone

Anonymous said...

"there are many staff in schools, including teachers and principal, who just don't care and find these kids annoying."

@MW "many staff don't care"? That is a very serious charge to make against district staff. I worked in SPS schools for 20 years and saw extreme dedication toward all students except in some rare cases.

You really need to stop bashing worthy people. This wholesale trashing of dedicated teachers and district staff is reprehensible.

Veteran Teacher

Melissa Westbrook said...

Backbone, I didn't say Juneau doesn't care or isn't working towards educational justice.

But this:
"Gee, maybe Juneau found some serious issues with UNEA in terms of contracts. Had she not acted, she'd be in violation of state law."

Really? Because that's not the reasoning given. And, how did the district have a 10-year old partnership agreement that was illegal?

"This wholesale trashing of dedicated teachers and district staff is reprehensible."

Completely wrong. I have supported teachers A LOT on this blog over the years. Post after post. And I have never "wholesale trashed" them. On Advanced Learning, though, I have heard and heard of many teachers and principals that did not support AL.

Anonymous said...

Wait, AL and HCC are two different things, right?. HCC has many autistic students in a segregated setting where AL does not. Is this true? and if so then why are you conflating the two?

--Just Looking

Anonymous said...

From what I recall, the 2007 APP review discussed the need for a curriculum as much of it was teacher developed (the need was stressed in light of possibly adding new APP sites). Well, a curriculum never materialized, but the warnings came to fruition as new APP sites were created and there was no real consistency across sites. The curriculum left with the veteran teachers. SPS ultimately dealt with the suggestion by simply eliminating any pretense of having an APP curriculum.

The review also suggested something about writing skills of the APP cohort not being well developed. Lowell worked to remedy this to some extent, but I'd suggest it continues to be a weakness districtwide, not just in HCC. We ended up supplementing at home with basic grammar texts, because some writing conventions do need to be taught and practiced.

In general, SPS seems to be weak on the things that seem mundane, but are foundational skills for all students. Phonics, handwriting, memorization of math facts, touch typing...the list is long.

The "HC kids do better out of the cohort" claim is based on some numbers the district put together some years back, but I seem to remember they did not separate the data by grade band (elementary vs middle school) and they did not have data about which schools were retaining the most HC students vs which schools had the highest rate of students opting in to the cohort. The limited data that was presented just brought up more questions. Many HC identified students stayed at their neighborhood elementary in order to minimize moves. Once the district stopped requiring students to retest to maintain eligibility, more families considered waiting until middle school to transition to HCC.

just rambling

Anonymous said...

It is a very reasonable proposal to limit HCC to 1%. When ~10% of the district's students are HCC eligible due to Seattle demographics, the majority of current HCC can be well-served in local (at least north end) schools. There are clearly those so far above the curve who would benefit from self-contained services and limiting to 1% would help identify those.

An equally important point is to revise appeals. It is clear that the current appeals process is problematically adding to the racial and SES disparity in HCC. Its astounding that almost 40% of HCC white students were admitted by appeal, whereas of all the African American and Hispanic students in HCC, only 7% (AA) and 22% (Hispanics) were admitted by appeals. This racial disparity is at least in part due to access to resources for making a successful appeal (both knowledge about the appeals process and financial resources to make it happen). An appeals process would remain in place to correct errors in process - but a private testing appeals due to not meeting the cutoff, that should be eliminated. A smarter appeals process needs to be implemented.

The above two changes would help the district meets its goals of (1) serving those who are not well-served in local schools due to being standard deviations away from the norm (limiting to 1%), and (2) to increasing equity (eliminating retesting appeals would, by the districts own numbers from the Friday memo of 8/19/2016, notably improve racial disparity).

Agree with others that the district needs to rethink and clarify its goals for HCC.

BLUE SKY

Anonymous said...

@ Sham, Data This, Lame, whoever.

Where's the data supporting the efficacy of HCC, HF? Is it the SPS NMSF numbers? I remember how eager you were to get the results here recently. Then...crickets from you.

You're right, we don't have hard data on the efficacy of HCC in SPS--because SPS has never done a comprehensive evaluation that would be able to demonstrate that. We only have an old and problematic study that was not able to show much of anything. The best we have right now are (a) anecdotal reports from parents who say it helped their child who struggling in GE for a variety of reasons; (b) anecdotal reports from teachers saying they often don't have time or materials for sufficient differentiation; and (c) evidence that many teachers, administrators, and non-HCC parents are inclined to not support HC services, and/or question the existence of HC students in the first place.

There is evidence from outside SPS that this is a best practice, and evidence from within SPS that this is a convenient capacity-balancing approach. But we have zero evidence that SPS has an effective HCC curriculum--and if I recall correctly, that was one of the key findings of that HCC evaluation report, too. For strong outcomes, you need a strong program. The level of challenge in HCC should be provided by SPS, aligned with the level of the students in it--but it's not the students themselves who provide the challenge, and SPS HCC meet similar criteria to those in surrounding districts. The failures are on the part of the district. Provide a stronger program and I can pretty much guarantee our students will perform as well on the NMSF, if that's really the goal.

@ Just Looking, why do you keep trying to link HCC and autism???

HF

Anonymous said...

The question was asked about "gifted" and someone mentioned that there are students in HCC on the spectrum. Another person wrote that many of the kids have social emotional issues that disrupt gen ed classrooms. Are they not referring to autism? So are there students with autism in HCC and how does HCC relate to AL. I thought AL opportunities were available in every school?

--Just Looking

Anonymous said...

@ BLUE SKY, when talking about limiting HCC to 1%, it's important to be clear whether we're talking about 99th percentile on nationally normed tests (which will likely admit more than 1% of SPS students), or the top 1% of SPS students (which I don't think we can determine with such certainty based on the error inherent in such tests). If HCC eligibility drops to about 1% overall, that's only about 500 kids. Knowing that some opt out, we may be looking at a couple dozen per grade level participating. Will that allow students access to the peers they need, especially if there are multiple sites? More importantly, would the pedagogy change to reflect the change in target population? I haven't seen anything about that, but it would be essential.

The appeals issue is also important, as HC students very often have associated learning challenges. Think of it this way: the complaint is that (some) minority groups are underrepresented in HCC, and that this is inequitable because the tests are biased or there are income-related challenges or there are access issues or their schools aren't as strong or whatever. The same goes for 2e students--they have issues that similarly impact their ability to demonstrate their intellectual giftedness on these standardized tests.

If overall HCC eligibility criteria are effectively lowered for underrepresented groups, this should include 2e students--who are also underrepresented and face HCC access barriers.

If eligibility criteria are notlowered for underrepresented groups, what is the plan to reduce the current disparities in HCC participation?

HF

Anonymous said...

@ Just Looking,

There are probably students on the spectrum in all SPS service types, but I think it's very inaccurate to imply that HCC has a lot of autistic students and GE doesn't.

Social emotional issues in HCC are often explained by asynchronous development, not autism. Gifted students often lag in some other skill area development, such as executive function. They catch up, but the asynchrony between being so far ahead in some areas and behind in others can create some additional challenges--for the student, the teacher, parents, and peers.

As to whether AL opportunities are available in every school, the district swears yes. The reality does not seem to match up.

HF

Anonymous said...

Does every AL need to be placed in a HCC type of setting? How many HCC students have these described social emotional issues and are they isolating those HCC students from the other HCC students? If not then how does the classroom deal with the disruptions that some say is the reason for the HCC in the first place ?

--Just Looking

Anonymous said...

I would say you're Miss named just trolling would be an apt moniker. Of course we know who you are though.
Rice famine

Anonymous said...

@Lame - Yup (unlike our superintendent BTW) I have and worked closely with kids as well. I come from a disadvantaged background being the first to graduate high school, or attend college in my family.

I don't understand the logic at all. If the program is viewed as racist for the top 2%, it is still racist for the top 1% in which they are keeping a cohort. In addition, the elimination of differentiation in neighborhood schools like walk to math, is still a problem.

Returning most of these kids, from which they came, back to their high performing neighborhood schools, makes zero impact IMO on kids furthest from educational justice.

Jane

Anonymous said...

"If eligibility criteria are not lowered for underrepresented groups, what is the plan to reduce the current disparities in HCC participation?"

Bingo HF. Any alteration of eligibility criteria should not only address racial disparities in the top 1%, but also socio-economics and be extended to help increase FRL kids. This may also mean more low income whites and Asians in the program.

Jane

Melissa Westbrook said...

"Another person wrote that many of the kids have social emotional issues that disrupt gen ed classrooms. Are they not referring to autism? So are there students with autism in HCC and how does HCC relate to AL. I thought AL opportunities were available in every school?"

Let's unpack this.

Some highly capable students are in the program because they get bored at the pace of a regular classroom and either look out the window, talk to people or get disruptive. Not all HCC do this but those are some signs. (Sadly, for some reason, teachers recognize the signs in more white kids but then think black kids are just misbehaving. This is why PD for every single teacher is crucial if the district wants to return all HCC to their attendance schools.)

You do NOT have to be autistic to have social-emotional issues. There's a whole Sped wing for those issues and most of those kids are not autistic.

AL in every school? Long ago there was HC,Spectrum and, supposed to be in every school, "advanced learning opportunities."And the CSIPs certainly reflected that while most schools did very little. And the answer to most parents about, "What kinds of advanced learning opportunities are in your classroom?" was usually one thing and if the parent pushed, the teacher urged them to seek out Spectrum or HC.

Anonymous said...

@Just Looking, I can’t tell if those are legit questions or not, but:

(1) No, not every AL student needs an HCC type setting—that’s largely why the AL and HCC eligibility criteria are very different, and is also probably why many don’t choose HCC for their kids who are eligible.

(2) Classroom disruptions are not the reason for HCC. Providing access to accelerated learning and enhanced instruction for HC students is the reason, together with SPS’s interest in also providing a social emotional component via the cohort, as SPS’s interest in having a capacity-balancing, student-drawing tool.

If you’re trying to imply something, please just say it.

HF

Common Sense said...

@BLUE SKY and others that want to decrease the cohort to the top 1%,

Decreasing the cohort to 1% does nothing to increase the amount of students in marginalized groups. If anything, decreasing the cohort to 1 percent and returning students to neighborhood schools will hurt the students the district claims to support.

Parents of minority children are asking the board not to return their children to their neighborhood schools. The board should center the voices of these individuals and listen.

The district's Honors for All report indicates the district does not have the capacity to provide a level of rigor across disciplines. Further decreasing services would be a mistake.

Time and time again, the district seeks to decrease choice. Families like choice. Fix what we have.

An expert from NW Gifted wants to audit the district. She wants to help the district find HCC students in under represented communities. Allow this individual to do so. The board needs to demand that the superintendent find these students.

Years ago, some high poverty schools had a reputation of finding higher numbers of HCC students in elementary schools. The district needs to look at schools and the amount of students they are referring.

The district's plan is misguided. There are better ways to spend resources.

Anonymous said...

SPS already screened schools with high FRL students and it didn't work. They need to use local norms. The current entrance requirements exclude many underserved students.

Rainier Scholars was founded to help nurture the talent that SPS excluded due to APP and then HC entrance requirements.

Enough

Anonymous said...

@HF Being a war refugee, experiencing on-going and past trauma, being EL, the only student of your race in the classroom, etc. are also challenges that students and schools experience every day. Asynchronous development often occurs for students with PTSD, too.

"asynchrony between being so far ahead in some areas and behind in others can create some additional challenges--for the student, the teacher, parents, and peers"

Once again, try looking at the...

Bigger Picture

Common Sense said...

Not true, Enough. Families are unaware of Advanced Learning Opportunities. A nationally recognized figure in Gifted Education will look at students through a different lens.

Everyone knows that Seattle is a dysfunctional system. The district spent time and resources to provide Advanced Learning Opportunities. Then, the district spent time and resources destroying Advanced Learning Opportunities in schools. Now, SPS is saying they want spend administrative time and resources to put Advanced Learning back in schools. In 10 years, the events of today will fade.

SEA won't tell you that teachers are stressed. They won't tell you that they can't effectively differentiate.

Where do the needs of special education students fall into the equation?

Anonymous said...

@ Bigger Picture, not seeing how my argument that 2e students ALSO face HCC eligibility challenges is contrary to your comment. My comment was clearly in response to a question about social emotional development in HCC, so I'm not sure why (or how) you'd expect me to cover every possible issue associated with asynchronous development.

I fully agree that many students face challenges and barriers. Are you arguing for special consideration of students impacted by the factors you mentioned, but againstconsideration of learning disabilities in the eligibility process? Is that the bigger picture--that we need to let more of the "right" kids into HCC, and 2e kids aren't them?

Maybe I'm undercaffeinated or something this morning, but I'm not seeing your point. Please do explain.

HF

Anonymous said...

@Enough, while Rainier Scholars may have been founded to help nurture the talent that SPS excluded due to APP (now HCC) entrance requirements, Rainier Scholars is a very intensive program. It takes a lot of time and resources, and commitment on the part of students and their families. After all that hard work, many RS students do qualify for AL, some for HCC. It seems clear, then, that with a deep commitment of efforts students from underserved demographics can be found, and can be developed to meet current cut-offs. But it takes work.

Simply using local norms so that RS-type students suddenly became HCC eligible would likely not have the impact you hope, however. It would get them into HCC, obviously, but HCC would not provide the intensive supports and development these students needed to get them up to even the AL level. How would that benefit them?

If we really want to see more underserved students in HCC, I think we need some sort of developmental program, a pre-HCC academy of sorts for students with high academic potential. Groups who are "underserved" in HCC are underserved all along the way--prior to K, and within SPS. If SPS doesn't provide some sort of "make-up" services to help bridge that gap, how can we expect things to work any better?

HF

Anonymous said...

@Lame So how does the superintendent's plan to keep a cohort for the top 1% do anything to increase racial (as well as low income) disparities in the program?

Just as not all affluent white people identify lock step with all low income white people, neither can you infer that the superintendent is only making equity based decisions (and impacting African Americans mostly) based upon her Native American identity. Native Americans are also an extremely small percentage of students in SPS.

Denise J was born into more privilege than myself, and many others with a mother who is a state senator and father who was a superintendent. Multiple generations of higher education in her family. I am not stating she does not care about equity, but the current policy decisions do not truly address equity in any meaningful way to help those furthest from educational justice IMO.

Nice erroneous assumption about my own background and experiences, simply due to the fact that I am criticizing the current plan, as more about optics than doing anything deeper or meaningful for equity. Maybe I am actually one of the people who care about equity and thinks more deeply about policy decisions.

Jane

Melissa Westbrook said...

"If we really want to see more underserved students in HCC, I think we need some sort of developmental program, a pre-HCC academy of sorts for students with high academic potential. Groups who are "underserved" in HCC are underserved all along the way--prior to K, and within SPS. If SPS doesn't provide some sort of "make-up" services to help bridge that gap, how can we expect things to work any better?"

Very good.

Anonymous said...

@Jane

Please get real. The outcomes Great job overcoming your difficulties. It's surprising that you therefore attributed negative motivations to Juneau in your first comment above, which was the source of my response.

It's not an oppression contest. It's about being fair when ascribing motives.

Traditionally underserved groups in this country continue to have the worst outcomes. Kudos to Juneau and her parents for being public servants who are dedicated to helping others achieve. As Native Americans, they would be personally aware more than most how the system works to help or oppress.

Lame

Anonymous said...

"The outcomes" should be deleted.

Lame

Anonymous said...

Rainier Scholars was founded to help nurture the talent that SPS excluded due to APP and then HC entrance requirements.

B*******. Rainier scholars was designed to get black and brown kids and Asians into a four-year college primarily through scaffolding and cooperation with the local Independent schools. They do IQ testing just like HCC and have taken kids from SPS Al identified and placed them into quality programs like lakeside.

Please stop inventing history to mask your factually inaccurate understanding of teaching children.

Dog collar

Anonymous said...

@Lame I don't agree that just by being of partial Native descent would Juneau understand oppression more than those who have been actually economically and educationally oppressed themselves, as well as who have lived and worked in under-served communities. In fact, I believe the opposite is usually true. We have a difference of opinion. Like the poster BM I do not agree this policy change is being driven by those who it is stating to better serve. What's the difference for example between a cohort for the top 1% and 2%? If anything like others mentioned it results in more boys, less girls and less low income and minority kids qualifying.

Jane

Anonymous said...

"I don't agree that just by being of partial Native descent"

First of all, if you are part of a tribe, you are Native American. They don't do a genetics test, as the Elizabeth Warren debacle brought into relief.

Secondly, this is not an oppression contest.

Third, if you think being part of an historically oppressed group in this country doesn't have meaning, you might want to do some research.

Finally, disagree with Juneau all you want. I would caution to assume positive intent.

Lame

Anonymous said...

@Dog Collar

Give them a call. Your point and mind aren't mutually exclusive.

What I stated used to actually be on their website, btw. That's where I got the information.

Enough

Anonymous said...

@Lame, care to explain how the proposed HC services changes will benefit underserved HC students, who will be sent back to the schools that were underserving them in the first place?

Or care to explain how it will help all the rest of the students at those schools to have a handful of HC students return?

It’s a lot easier to assume positive Intent when there’s evidence there will be positive impacts, but most people aren’t seeing them for underrepresented students supposedly being centered in these changes. The benefits appear to flow toward AL or near-AL students at schools with many advanced students (I.e., generally higher income, less diverse schools).

HF

Melissa Westbrook said...

"I would caution to assume positive intent."

The most famous last words to use in this district. While I'd say most JSCEE staff mean well, it's surprising how many times things go south. And, there have been people at the top who manipulate outcomes for either an unspoken agenda at JSCEE or to help their profile.

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

Lame As your original post was inappropriate reply to my original comment, I believe you either misinterpreted my post, or got me confused with someone else. You also referred to BM's comment which was spot on as an "interesting analysis" only. Social justice allies is quite different than policy being driven by those actually disenfranchised. This is being driven by those with power and there are lots of holes in the arguments being made that are not being addressed.

I never accused Juneau of not caring about equity. However I did state that some "who cared about social justice were not thinking about policies very deeply". It also does benefit those who also care about optics and you really cannot convince me otherwise about an administration. Of course they care about optics and appearing to address equity.

However, you accused me of being privileged without knowing my background or anything about me, and then created the "oppression contest" dialogue. Go back and re-read.

I will state again that I have not yet seen anything that explains to me how some of the changes proposed does anything for equity or under-identified populations. They are keeping it for the top 1% which are likely to be an even more exclusive group. When you look at the proposed policy implications to benefit the already affluent neighborhood schools that will be receiving back most of the HC students. Except for the fact that boundaries will be redrawn.

Jane

Anonymous said...

The highly capable cohort is 60 something percent White... So is Seattle. I would say that is locally normed. SPS has ignored offers to review test data to identify those currently missing from services.

This is all just PR and spin to make it easier for administrators to put kids in schools. Less choice. Easier predictions. If the neighborhood School was such a great choice the cohort would evaporate.

Dog collar

@Lame said...

Juneau discredits herself. She does not need Geary's help.

Juneau is starting to develop a long list of failures. There will be more to come.

Will Juneau take-up an offer from a gifted specialist to audit the district? I'm thinking NO because, IMO, she has no real interest in identifying HCC students in minority populations.

We have African American families asking the board not to send their children back to their neighborhood schools. Then we have Geary, a white woman, not centering on their voices. What is wrong with this picture? What ever happened to centering on voices of marginalized communities?