The Long-Awaited Data on "Honors for All"
Actually, Honors for All is the wrong nomenclature. It's now called, "Integrated Honors."
I read it and while I am a fan of Eric Anderson, the Director of Research & Evaluation, I am not a fan of this document.
While the document acknowledges that there isn't near enough data to make it conclusion, it seems promising. Kind of.
I don't have time to do a full thread on it but I thought it might be of interest to many readers.
I can say that while is has a bit of fairness in there - in terms of providing data that would go against the plan - it is pretty skewed to make it seem like a good thing.
What it definitely shows is that doing this creating this kind of class population means teachers need to have more PD and more resources and supports. You hear it from both students and teachers.
And the district means to enact this district-wide by next fall? Complete folly.
Do let me know your thoughts.
I read it and while I am a fan of Eric Anderson, the Director of Research & Evaluation, I am not a fan of this document.
While the document acknowledges that there isn't near enough data to make it conclusion, it seems promising. Kind of.
I don't have time to do a full thread on it but I thought it might be of interest to many readers.
I can say that while is has a bit of fairness in there - in terms of providing data that would go against the plan - it is pretty skewed to make it seem like a good thing.
What it definitely shows is that doing this creating this kind of class population means teachers need to have more PD and more resources and supports. You hear it from both students and teachers.
And the district means to enact this district-wide by next fall? Complete folly.
Do let me know your thoughts.
Comments
Thanks to the district for its efforts in studying the policy they are implementing to ensure that the intervention achieves the desired outcome.
BLUE SKY
Course Par
For those with greater knowledge on this, when SPS uses this term, are they simply referring to a racial demographic, or are they specifically referring to those students from these racial groups who are indeed furthest from educational justice?
BLUE SKY
BLUE SKY
Course Par
Oh yeah. Nobody cares about how good the exclusion was. 1 hour of integration in an entire high school experience? Give ‘em an inch the mob will take it all.
Go Private
Wake up
If you don't like the blog/blogger, why keep reading and commenting? I'm pretty sure you won't be missed
Buh bye
Nope, I was against it without the supports and resources and, if you read the comments from teachers and students, rightly so.
Wake Up, I said I was easing out but I never said I would not cover the school board races and since HCC is such a hot topic, I'm covering it.
Then the state will get a close- up look at private appeals that invalidate test scores, lack of diversity, poor cohort outcomes compared to non-cohort, and the rest.
Bring ItOn
There appears to be inconsistency across courses in the degree of rigor and challenge experienced by all students – likely in part because teachers have fully specified a consistent, concrete curricular and pedagogical framework for Integrated Honors. It’s not clear teachers have the materials, training and support to fully differentiate instruction in order to meet the diverse academic and social emotional needs of students – though this is a common challenge for teachers in many schools across SPS.
and then here's the version with what I think is the missing term:
:
There appears to be inconsistency across courses in the degree of rigor and challenge experienced by all students – likely in part because teachers have NOT fully specified a consistent, concrete curricular and pedagogical framework for Integrated Honors. It’s not clear teachers have the materials, training and support to fully differentiate instruction in order to meet the diverse academic and social emotional needs of students – though this is a common challenge for teachers in many schools across SPS.
Re lack of diversity, this is clearly a complex issue. The majority of issues leading to lack of diversity in HCC are not things that are within SPS's control. Eliminating private testing appeals and instituting universal testing, at least for schools with a high FRL population, will modestly address the diversity issue. Providing early education / preschool is as important, if not more so - this is something the district should fully address. But in a city like Seattle, where the demographics of employees of UW, Microsoft, Amazon, etc, do not look like the demographics of the rest of the city, it is not surprising that HCC largely reflects demographics of the city's high tech and academic work-force. To expect otherwise would be counter-intuitive.
Poor cohort outcomes is an interesting issue. What do you mean by this? Please provide a link that shows evidence for your definition of poor cohort outcomes, so the discussion can be based on facts rather than conjecture.
BLUE SKY
"District practices for identifying the most highly capable students must prioritize equitable identification of low-income students."
Don't see anything about how high tech progeny in SPS shall dominate HC identification and that's just fine. Do you?
Enough
However, equitable identification does not mean allocation equal to the demographics of the larger population. It means allocation equal to the demographics of the eligible population. It is quite likely that the demographic breakdown of those eligible is not proportionate to the demographics of the larger population. Hence, because HCC will likely be enriched with tech and UW academic progeny, it will likewise reflect those demographics.
BLUE SKY
Honors All correlates to the New Student Assignment Plan and TAF because TAF would break a HCC pathway. Geary (and only Geary) offers an amendment to bring-in TAF. I don't see a single document detailing costs.
Minutes from the Operations Committee have NOT been updated since August. So, what is with that?!
I have not seen costs outlined in Friday Memos.
The last documented C&I minutes (Geary's Committee) does not include costs related to TAF.
https://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/School%20Board/committees/C&I/2019-20/190910%20C&I%20Minutes%20-%20Final.pdf
https://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/School%20Board/19-20%20agendas/November%206/A05_20191106_Amendment%201%20to%20Student%20Assignment%20Transition%20Plan%202020-21.pdf
It is possible that I'm missing something. I just don't see it, but moving forward with a plan to break HCC, add TAF etc. without incorporating costs is incredibly irresponsible.
References to 2-tier identification system to identify more "Black and Brown" students, plus ALTF support for additional financial resources allocated to schools.
reader
Also, I have heard that the POC on the committee had asked if they could go to a Board meeting and directly address the Board and were told no. (My opinion is that they should do what their conscience tells them to do.)
At all
Highly Capable Cohort (HCC): Students enrolled as HCC receive an initial assignment to their HCC pathway middle school based on where they live. If they apply for their attendance area middle school during Open Enrollment through May 31, they will be assigned to that school (unless they apply for and are assigned to a higher ranked choice).
If a Joint Operating Agreement between the Technology Access Foundation (“TAF”) and the District has been executed to implement the TAF model at Washington Middle School beginning in the 2020-21 school year, then beginning in fall 2020 6th grade students assigned to Washington Middle School who had been receiving HC services in the cohort model in 5th grade will continue receiving HC services in a blended model.
It doesn't explicitly say it, but I guess what they really mean is this:
NORTH-END students enrolled as HCC receive an initial assignment to their HCC pathway middle school, while SOUTH-END HCC students will no longer have access to a cohort model and will instead be sent to WMS for STEMbyTAF, and educational model NOT developed specifically to support the needs of HC students, but rather intended "to contribute to the District’s strategic plan priority to 'support students of color who are furthest from educational justice.'"
Note how it also says in the community engagement section that the level of engagement merited by this action is "inform." As in, "no, we won't engage you in this huge change to the nature of services your child can receive. We'll simply TELL you what we decide. Deal with it."
Oh, and they also try to pass off the "95% graduation rate" and "100% college acceptance" as proof that this model will work for HC students. I guess they didn't bother to look at TAF's actual test results for percent of students performing at--or for god's sake, above--grade level? Hey Director Geary, care to explain why test scores don't matter? Or maybe how many MAP/SBAC Level 4 students TAF has worked with in the past, what approaches they've used with them, what their growth trajectories were like, etc?
Juneau and Geary should be ashamed by these efforts to just ram things through without engaging the HC community. So paternalistic. If TAF is all that and can do great by HC students, wouldn't HC students gladly choose it if given the chance to see--ahed of time--how, and how well, if works for HC students?
all types
"WMS for STEMbyTAF, an educational model NOT developed specifically to support the needs of HC students, but rather intended "to contribute to the District’s strategic plan priority to 'support students of color who are furthest from educational justice.'"
all types
real question
High school is not cohorted, and although about 1/2 the high schoolers identified as HC have gone to neighborhood high schools, there is still a "pathway" at Lincoln, Ingraham and Garfield. Will there still be pathway for high schoolers in 2020 or will HC students be served at their neighborhood high schools? When is the district planning to serve HC students at all neighborhood high schools?
Parent
HP
To me, the preliminary evaluation document basically says "it's not really working all that well now, and we're not sure how to change that, but we still like the idea of it (that's why we did it in the first place), so let's expand it across the district!"
SPS logic
The document quotes a teacher as stating, “Schoolwide I would say about 85% of staff are supportive.” Who cares what one teacher thinks? Not only is this quote meaningless, but it's also potentially misleading because another teacher might have said the exact opposite and had their views omitted from the study. Why not simply ask all the teachers through an anonymous questionnaire?
One student is quoted as saying, “Honors for All classes are more diverse but a lot easier.” Another student is quoted as say, “I had one honors class that worked. The teacher ran the class like an honors class.” So, we have two students saying opposite things. The district could have asked the students after the completion of each course anonymously and quantified the results, but didn’t.
The study is full of 40+ such “quotes”. If a researcher selects 40 quotes from a thousand to present as a study, what exactly does that mean? It means absolutely nothing.
Out of the 45 slides in the “study”, in my opinion, there are only two that are of any interest. One slide shows the percent of students of color taking at least 1 AP class, which appears to have increased by 1% between 2015 and 2018, but the numbers vary significantly from year to year, so it’s difficult to draw any real conclusions, but if true, that would be great.
The second slide of interest shows AP Exam scores for HCC Students, which went down in 2017. Interestingly, the study does not show the AP Exam scores for students of color. It also does not show the total number of AP classes taken as opposed to simply the number of students taking at least 1 exam. I assume the district, in fact, has this data, and it's curious that it’s not included.
The “study” concludes with a “Summary of Key Findings”, which again is completely anecdotal. In my opinion, the study is weak, misleading, and disappointing. The School Board has been asking for the “promised study” for a long time. It appears that the staff’s answer was to send a researcher down for a few days to conduct “focus groups” and to label it a study. Data related to AP Exams that does exist was not included. I think it reflects poorly on both researcher Eric Anderson and Seattle Public Schools.
BLUE SKY
I read those not as students saying opposite things, but rather similar experiences. The first student said the HfA classes are a lot easier, and the second said they had ONE honors class that worked and was like an honors class--implying that others did NOT work and were NOT like honors classes.
A decrease in AP exam scores for HCC students could be one of the most obvious indicators that HfA is not working well to support students sent there via the HCC pathway. Why were 2018 AP scores not "yet" available for this report? Shouldn't 2019 AP scores also be available by now? If the Board is going to review this report, they should insist that AP score data be updated to reflect additional years of data first. It would also be good to see a comparison of how AP scores for the same classes for HCC students at Garfield vs. other SPS high schools compare for the pre-and post-HfA years. If scores are going up elsewhere but not at GHS, that says something.
HF
You said, "I was cutting them some slack in my assessment, given that we're barely a year or so into this."
Actually, according to the "study", "Honors for All" has existed for 3 full years 16/17, 17/18, and 18/19. It would appear the district has run 450+ students through these classes.
According to the study, "It was beyond the scope of this preliminary study to observe classroom instruction, analyze curricular materials, or conduct a full survey of staff, students, or families."
In other words, after 3 years and 450+ students, the district hasn't bothered to do even the most rudimentary analysis.
FNH
Yes, I don't know why the Superintendent would continue using such inflammatory language which divides people. Ask the Board.
I'm pretty sure it's far worse than that. It's not simply all students of one teacher, but the whole dept, right? And didn't it spread to both LA and SS now?
I'd conservatively estimate at least 1,000-1,500 kids have been through this, and the report amounts to nothing but a few cherry-picked quotes and very limited, self-supporting data. Worthless. No, it's worse than worthless, it was a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Like so may district initiatives that hide from any scrutiny, it's either due to incompetence (which I don't think is true in this case) or purposely trying to hide or distort reality (which I totally believe).