Tuesday, November 12, 2019

Tuesday Open Thread

In very good news for the families whose children were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary school, the Supreme Court today decided that the families' lawsuit against the gun manufacturer, Remington, can go forward.  From NPR:

The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families of victims of the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker and promoter of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.

A 2005 federal law that shields gun companies from liability has several exceptions — including one allowing lawsuits against a gun-maker or seller that knowingly violates state or federal laws governing how a product is sold or marketed.

In March, the Connecticut Supreme Court breathed new life into the families' lawsuit when it ruled they can sue Remington for marketing a military-style weapon to civilians. 

And he recalled one of Remington's ads for a gun that carried the tagline, "Consider your man card reissued."

"What kind of society allows manhood to be defined in this way?" Wheeler asked.
So unless I'm reading her tweet wrongly, looks like director-elect Chandra Hampson won't be accepting the $4600 a year that school board directors make from the state. 
Now at 66.4% and 100,835 votes!! Seems like a good time to share the note Mila left on my pillow. This is and will remain the only form of payment I receive for the job I’m about to undertake as School Board.
And for someone who says she doesn't support charter schools "in general", she sure talks a lot about them.
Here’s one idea for getting more math engagement in SPS! (Yes I know it’s a charter school. A dual language one connected to UCI. Look at the courts!)
A few district items of interest this week:

- the Executive Committee will have a STEMbyTAF update, including southend HCC.

- the Curriculum&Instruction Committee will hear an update on the anti-racist policy from Director Geary; I'm still waiting for her community engagement that she promised.

- Two Work Sessions this week.  Oh look, on Tuesday, it's about Ethnic Studies. I note a 49 page presentation for a session of 90 minutes.  Funny how staff always seem to have overly long presentations which limit the time for discussion and questions.

In other election returns, looks like Tracy Castro-Gill did not win her race to be on the Highline School Board.  I'm sure Superintendent Enfield is breathing a sigh of relief.

- The other Work Session is a two-fer. Thirty minutes for the Board's evaluation and 60 minutes for the Operations Data Dashboard.

  • Page 17, 29% of families think the district central office is responsive to input and concerns.
  • Below that is the number of kids who feel safe at school - still dropping from 2013-2014 when it was 76% to last year at 66%.
And fyi, the district is now using "FFEJ" for "furthest from educational justice." I did Google that acryonm because I was puzzled and apparently there are several meanings including "awesome", "false","an uber creep" or "a pet face."  The district may be a trend-setter on this one.

What's on your mind?


Anonymous said...

Thanks for the news re: Sandy Hook families.
I see TCG didn't get the board seat. I am relieved so she can focus on her job at SPS.
It is going to be a long 4 years for you Melissa. Hampson hasn't even started and you are reporting on her FB posts. Get a life.
I am looking forward to the anti-racist policy update.

Fed Up

Mike said...

Does anyone ask current students to define educational justice and rank their personal distance from it? Has anyone asked current students if they lack opportunities altogether, opportunities for college, opportunities for becoming You Tube influencers, music artists, tradespeople, opportunities for becoming what they want, not what adults think is best for them? Has anyone asked current students if other districts offer every possible opportunity in the world? I suspect not and I propose that educational equity SPS defines as opportunity is relative to each student's perception quite apart from the judgement of adults, both parents and SJ activists, looking in as concerned but less than omniscient outsiders.

I'm raising these questions as encouragement: 1) for Melissa to post a thread on the purposes of K-12 public education, 2) for examination of the cult of equity, and 3) for a reminder adults are intended to be guides to, not dictators of, K-12 education.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Fed Up, I don't like your tone; please don't use that for me or anyone else.

I do have a life beyond this district. Just because I don't talk about it means little.

I would like to see this anti-racist policy update (and reminds me of a public disclosure request I need to make; thanks for the reminder).

"Has anyone asked current students if other districts offer every possible opportunity in the world?"

I'm not sure kids or even parents are qualified to know that.

Juneau is very high on student voices (except for HCC) so perhaps she will ask students what it is that would help them work towards a good academic outcome.

Also, interesting that you mention number 3 because that is in the Ethnic Studies presentation (but with different wording).

Anonymous said...

Full disclosure, I don't like much about SPS. Poor leadership , average teachers, high cost per student and very poor results for marginalized students are just a few reasons why.

With that being said, I see the new Strategic Plan as a poison pill that will help charters schools finally being authorized by the district. Why do I think this? It's because there is simply noway this district will meet the goals of the plan and there is no way the district can change the plan. This will be the districts final failure because the liberal forces will insist on the nuclear option after the failure, which is charters.

How am I so sure of failure? Well SPS has always operated as if hiring an expensive administrator is the solution to every single issue. We know how those hires turn out.

As SPS reaches the mid point of the 2019-2020 school year the district has not implemented a single corrective action towards reaching its goals set forth in the plan. This means another full year will pass where the students called out in the plan fall further behind.

When in trouble the top heavy administration goes out and spends money they claim is so limited on a consulting firm to tell them they have no chance within the next few years of meeting the plan which will set in motion the PSED road show where the district meets with parents to confess their past sins, but lets everyone know they have changed their ways.

Remember you read it here first.

Just Facts

Watching said...

TAF needs to go through the Audit and Finance and Operations Committee.

Ching! said...

Sure, Chandra's not going to take the little stipend for serving on the board. The 1% don't need such things. It wouldn't even make up for what she spent on her campaign consultants anyway. But her husband will make more than that selling her knowledge of how to get districts to buy stuff to his consulting company.


Melissa Westbrook said...

And you know her husband is part of this how?

Anonymous said...

When and how do we hear about the TAF update? I thought it was dead...

Fed Up

Anonymous said...

Why is this baseless garbage not immediately deleted?

"But her husband will make more than that selling her knowledge of how to get districts to buy stuff to his consulting company."

Daily Mail

Anonymous said...

Chandra's husband (he has a different last name) is part of the Intentional Futures team - that is true. I don't know if it is 'his' company, nor if he intends to leverage any insight into the district/board in the way you imply. I guess it remains to be seen.

benefit of doubt

Anonymous said...

If you want to stock up on socks, sweatshirts, or other items for you or your school's closet, Lake City Fred Meyer is having a 50% off sale. There was a small fire a couple weeks back and all men's and women's clothes that were on the floor at the time are being sold at a discount.

good deals

Anonymous said...

Just a side note, If you voted against $30 car tabs then please keep paying your current rate. Please don't be a hypocrite and pay the new $30 rate.


Listen Carefully said...

Chandra Hampson was endorsed by Seattle Education Association, The Stranger, State Representative Gerry Pollet, King County Democrats and Wayne Au. All of these organizations and individuals do not support the privatization of public education. As a matter of fact, WEA and Au were part of a group that appealed the I 1240 decision up to the Supreme Court.

Hampson certainly appears to support charter schools. There is a video where she equivocated about charter schools.

As Hampson begins her 4 year stent on Seattle Public School Board, it appears her supporters are about to enjoy a short honeymoon period.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Fed Up, oh no, TAF is far from dead. The Superintendent is deadset on getting it into Washington Middle School. Now, given the numbers for Aki Kurose, Madrona, RBHS and WMS, well, WMS seems an odd choice for a district that wants to serve students furthest from education justice and for an org whose mission is to serve those kids as well.

What's interesting is I perceive she wants to show that HCC kids can get the pace/depth of learning in a Gen Ed class via TAF. Thing is, that would be one school. Is that like the test school to see if TAF's model of teaching and learning would allow all the other schools to provide that? Stay tuned.

Sure, I'd give Hampson's husband the benefit of the doubt but it's worth knowing where he works. At any rate, every single board director has to file a listing of who might have conflicts of interest in their family.

I have a hard time with people who want to nuance every view especially when they will sit on a board where not one, but two previous boards have said no way.

Anonymous said...

Students of color account for two-thirds of all students in Seattle Public Schools.

Students of color account for 10% of high school students in the district’s advanced learning programs.

It is these inequities that Rainier Scholars seeks to address."

This is from the current website of Rainier Scholars. The abusive comment directed at me on the other thread still has not been deleted:

"Fwiw, you are just making s*** up. And you've done that all the time to feed your delusions. Send over the URL. There is none."


Anonymous said...

Well that is made up, though. You can only get those numbers if you include Asian and multi-racial students as students of color in all of SPS, but then don't include Asian and multi-racial students as student of color in advanced learning programs. Which is dumb.

In or out

Anonymous said...

I'm the messenger.

The underlying point is that SPS has excluded many talented and Highly Capable historically underserved students and continues to do so.

Facts are facts on that front.


Melissa Westbrook said...

Lame, I must have missed that; I'll delete it.

Ethnic Studies said...

More on the Ethnic Studies framework:

"We believe that all courses should incorporate Ethnic Studies curriculum, however at a minimum, students should participate in 4-5 ethnic studies classes in high school" The Ethnic Studies department wants 1 Ethnic Study class per year.

When would students have time for 24 Credits? What would happen to AP classes?

"Ethnic studies frameworks should be used to develop yearlong or semester long, scope and sequence documents, in conjunction with culturally responsive, critical pedagogy for all courses, including but not limited to:

Ethnic Studies Social Studies 101 = World History I Ethnic Studies Social Studies 102 = World History II Ethnic Studies Social Studies 201 = World History III Ethnic Studies Social Studies 202 = World History IV, or Human Geography or Global Issues (or whatever SS course schools teach in the sophomore year….) Ethnic Studies Social Studies 301 = U.S. History, or History of the Americas Semester 1 Ethnic Studies Social Studies 302 = U.S. History, or History of the Americas Semester 2 Ethnic Studies Social Studies 401 = American Government or 20th Century World History "


Alsept Teresa said...

Intentional futures is a company that develops online curriculum much like Amplify. From the website. “...
In 2014, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation took another step toward ensuring that all students are set up for success on their postsecondary journeys. Their three-year, $20+ million grant program aimed to spur a cadre of digital learning providers, already innovators in the field, to up their game even further by developing next-generation affordable courseware that would more effectively help low-income and disadvantaged learners succeed in high-enrollment general education and undergraduate college courses...”

Anonymous said...

If a board member is married to a minister, does that mean there would be an uptick in revivals in front of JSCEE before every meeting?

If anything, the guy will lose business because of conflict of interest laws.

Enough with the conspiracy theories and baseless accusations, folks. Your candidate lost.

GetOver It

Anonymous said...

Hey Teresa, that is some good researching there. While you are at it can you please research the spouses/partners of the rest of the current and elected board members? So we can all speculate about different conspiracy theories:

Brandon Hersey: medical student
Leslie Harris: no idea
Zack DeWolf: Real Estate agent
Eden Mack: no idea
Rick Burke: teacher
Liza Rankin: no idea
Lisa Rivera Smith: no idea
Scott Pinkham: activist?
Jill Geary: no idea
Chandra Hampson: whatever you make it to be
Nobody concerns me except the medical student. You never know...

Fed Up

Anonymous said...

Here is the lie/complete misrepresented history that furthers deluded arguments. :

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

RS has everything to do with getting into college and does that primarily through partnerships with independent schools. They have IQ test too and are highly selective. The real case is made to families is do you want to go to college well then your best bet is too go to one of our partner schools... Not SPS. RS functions around SPS to track kids into independent schools to college. And it has nothing to do with the HCC... And it never has.

Dog collar

Anonymous said...

Conspiracy theory? Seems like a conflict to me unless managed. That is Ed reform stuff for sure... Like pseudo equity and honors for all.

Nutz jobz

Anonymous said...

Uh, Dog Collar, that quote is cribbed from Rainier Scholars' current website.

File a fraud claim or something if you're so sure you are right and their own website is wrong.


Melissa Westbrook said...

Fed Up and others, again, all the directors have to fill out a disclosure about their relatives.

I would appreciate dialing back on tone and talking more about issues.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of tone...

"But her husband will make more than that selling her knowledge of how to get districts to buy stuff to his consulting company."

...still not deleted

Daily Mail

Anonymous said...

Oh, that's right! You don't like her. That's made clear every day here. Blog rules get suspended for stuff like that.


Anonymous said...

Okay you do know that that AL is 60% White (simmiliar to Seattle) So for them to claim it is 10% not white they have serious issues with math. They seem to know how to count not white when it comes the district's demographics. But not for the program's racial make up. STRANGE. Sorry you stumbled on a false blurb on their site-- perhaps meant to get kids interested instead into private schools -- and thought, see! Brilliant, they do math like Juneau and DeWolf. Let's not count those pesky Asians and multi racials.

But that is an aside and I completely applaud the program, the staff and their families dedication... As they work to get kids through college not to teach under identified hcc kids. Which they probably do but not their thing. Your apology is accepted... because I think you can add up to 100%.

Again I suggest you do some real research and see that they meet kids where they are to get smart and dedicated low income families through college: "We offer a pathway to college graduation for hard-working, low-income students of color by providing access to transformative educational opportunities. Our scholars engage in a proven, 12-year model that brings together the academic preparation, leadership development and personalized support they need to graduate from a four-year college and become career professionals and leaders in our community." Not some instead of APP/HCC you so erroneously purported.

Dog collar

Another View said...

@DM To avoid conflict of interests, board members must disclose personal information. This information is available to the public.

If the post was on SPS Community Facebook page, you would be told to sit and feel uncomfortable.

Anonymous said...

"selling her knowledge"

obviously isn't about disclosure but accusing their family of seeking to capitalize on the board seat. No proof. Nothing but malice and suspension of blog rules.

Special, huh?

Reputation of this blog is what it does.


Anonymous said...

TAF prepares middle school students to be successful in high school. HCC prepares students to take high school classes in middle School. The programs have completely different goals. Juneau's line that it's just one year and one building is as disingenuous as it is an ideal program for highly capable students.


Anonymous said...

I'm not familiar with TAF at all, but the little I've read says the TAF's target audience has been students of color in low performing schools. Juneau wants to apply the TAF model to high performing kids. Has this been done before? Is there any data showing that the TAF model will be effective with these kids or is this an experiment? It would be great if we could all see the data and take a lot of the emotion out of this debate.

Data person

Anonymous said...

@ Data person, that's been my thinking all along. The TAF intervention was designed for a specific target population, which appears to differ markedly from the HCC population. This is not to say the TAF model cannot also work for the HCC population--and Trish Dziko (TAF's founder/director?) and Eden Mack (SPS Board Director familiar with HCC), said they think it can--but so far there have not been any data presented that support that assumption (or hope?). The publicly available data on student performance indicate that most TAF students are scoring below standard, and it's unclear how many students they have, or have had, who are/were at, or above, standard. It would be great to see the score trajectories of such students over time, since TAF has been around a while. Graduation and attendance data aren't sufficient, but those seem to be all anyone will share.

Supplementing some quantitative data, it would also be great to see more qualitative information. Tell the story of how teachers work with HC students. Maybe a few illustrative cases of students who entered TAF as very high achievers, and how TAF allowed them push further ahead. Some examples of how teachers differentiated for them, even though they were required to use the same grade-level curriculum as everyone else.

TAF testimony at the board meeting made it sound as if anyone interested in such information should go observe TAF in action, but that's unrealistic and unreasonable. I think the burden lies on the district to get the data the need from TAF, then make a case that supports this approach for this population. If they can't do that, they don't have a lot of basis for making such a decision.

I also do not think it unreasonable to do this as a pilot program, provided they have a solid evaluation plan that includes meaningful stakeholder engagement (that includes HCC families), and that they are making contingency plans in case it does not work as well as hoped. If they are doing it as a pilot program it probably does not make sense to enter a 10-yr agreement, unless the plan is to pilot the HCC component but stick with TAF for non-HCC regardless. In that case, HCC plans for those opting out of the initial pilot year, and for what happens in year 2 if the pilot doesn't work, would need to be included in the original, overall district plan.

Unfortunately, I've found that asking for data makes you the bad guy in this situation. It feels like it's not ok to question TAF; it's considered racist, or elitist, or hypercritical, etc. Those who want to see SPS make an evidence-based decision based on actual data that reflect the populations to be served are seen as unfairly targeting TAF.

all types

OSPI said...

TAF's test scores are abysmal. The board must acknowledge and publicly discuss TAF's test scores.

Anonymous said...

worth repeating; what the test scores are

WHY, WHY would this district WANT to import a failing school program????

Look at the TAF test scores, their results are awful. No child, let alone WMS students, should be subjected to this.

What kind of incompetent district supervisor and board director would want Seattle kids to be forced into this failing program?

Ask yourself, do you want TAF at your middle school? For your kid?? If not, then don’t foist it on WMS!!!!

TAF@Saghalie Middle School in Federal Way

2017 test scores

6th Grade
TAF - Federal Way Ave - WA State Ave
ELA 20% 40%
Math 20% 29%
SBAC Math 21% 33% 45%
SBAC reading 30% 44% 54%

7th Grade
TAF - Federal Way Ave - WA State Ave
ELA 33% 49%
Math 23% 33%
SBAC Math 15% 35% 48%
SBAC reading 35% 49% 57%

8th Grade
TAF - Federal Way Ave - WA State Ave
ELA 31% 50%
Math 15% 31%
SBAC Math 24% 33% 46%
SBAC reading 44% 50% 57%
Sci 43% 52% 61%

So, even in a “failing district”, TAF managed to out-fail even worse. How can TAF students go to highschool & still graduate? Lower the bar, that’s how.

Data matters. Evidence-based decision-making matters.

Policy driven by agendas, not actual results, fails our kids, our families, and depletes whatever little public confidence there might be. Juneau installing them against the community’s will (teachers OVERWHELMINGLY voted against this) will follow her just like Goodloe-Johnson’s massive flops made her fairly unemployable. The academic failure and student derailment that will follow if Juneau/ Geary/Hampson get their way will likely precipitate such hostility, not just WMS test scores will plummet, but WMS enrollment will plummet too, resulting in smaller budgets and RIFS at WMS.

I would not allow my kids to go to TAF. Do unto others. If it is not good enough, it is not good enough for anybody’s kid.

If Juneau is truly a true believe, then she can make it a stand-alone academy/option program inside Rainier Beach. If it is desired, it will fill. If parents reject it, and nobody shows up, there’s your answer. Forcing TAF on WMS kids means only the under-resourced families will be forced to take/endure this ‘pilot’ while those “closer” to educational justice will avoid/escape.

Vote NO

Anonymous said...

@Vote NO
Test scores from a state test would be only one data point to illustrate the success of a program. We don't know where baseline was for those kids. I would not dismiss this program which seems to have alot of people supporting it without much more information. I don't have any skin in this game as I have an older student, but the director of the program should be meeting with future and current WMS parents to answer questions. I am kind of surprised they are putting this program into a neighborhood school, and not making it an option school. But the district also does that with many programs including IB.

HS Mom

Melissa Westbrook said...

DM, you have made your point. But again, every single director has to file out a disclosure form. Director Michael DeBell had to disclose that his wife was an SPS employee. Director Blanford had to disclose he had a consulting business that sometimes did work for educational entities.

Data Person, I'll try to answer your questions in a new thread.

Vote No, I always encourage parents to look beyond test scores because no school's community and life is based on one test score.

I do agree that WMS was picked for a point, not to help the most students furthest from educational justice. If that were the case, Juneau would have picked Aki Kurose, RBHS or Madrona.

Another Blogger said...

There is another blogger in town that took aim at Juneau's recent Op Ed to dismantle HCC.

The individual questions:" HOW CAN THE SPS ADDRESS DISPARITIES WITHOUT SUPPORTING THE HIGHEST GOALS FOR ALL KIDS?" and " Yet, in Superintendent Juneau’s essay, she writes as if the existing “cohort” were something to be ashamed of. How can you induce some homeless kid or a struggling immigrant to aspire for success if you demean success as racist? "

The individual calls attention to the fact that 9% of Seattle's students are performing in the top 2%. These numbers should be celebrated: " Why doesn’t the Seattle Superintendent celebrate the 9% number as evidence of success? Is it bad to offer gifted education? Ms. Juneau’s editorial bemoans that about 70% of the kids in these programs are “white” .. hardly surprising in a city where 70% OF THE POPULATION is “white.” The individual has a valid point.

The blogger calls attention to the fact that 30% of Seattle's families choose private school.

He calls attention to the hypocrisy of elitism in sports:" Of course Seattle School’s opposition to elitism is not true in athletics. SPS boasts of athletics at Garfield even though, given the reality of black flight from the Central District, Garfield needs to recruit kids from less “white” parts of the city .. or even from the suburbs or, in one case, work with the UW to import a promising basketball candidate from another state to be a student in a Seattle High School. "

More: "I applaud Superintendent Juneau for taking on this issue but, to use a loaded phrase, I see her essay as tarring the very programs these kids need and deserve."

And: " I also wonder if the SPS has brought in experts who have had successes in dealing with highly talented " An expert from the NW Gifted Association has offered to audit the district. I highly doubt the district will take the offer.

Lastly: " My guess is that the real reason that the SPS is destroying its elite programs is because of white liberal oppositon to the very idea that schools should encourage kids to strive to be their best. One School Board Director, Jill Schlegel Geary , recently summarized this all too well in a Facebook post demeaning Seattle parents who were lining up to get their kids tested for private school. “As I stand in line, the looooong line, for the ISEE (Independent School Exam),….with all these predominantly white families, it occurs to me they are here because we have created Self-contained smart schools that their children do NOT have access to. So whole some argue dismantling a closed highly capable pathway will drive families out of SPS, it appears to have the exact opposite impact. Everyone one wants a challenging, engaging education for their child and we have a system that says we won’t deliver it if your kid isn’t at the tippy top.”

Melissa Westbrook said...

Another blogger, you need to send me the link and tell me who this is.


Anonymous said...

@MW I am pretty sure it is this:


More noise please

Anonymous said...

Families choose private schools for many, MANY reasons and if G believes it's primarily because of "self-contained smart schools" that they can't access, what the what?!

Here's a short list of some reasons:

- stability, predictability, and continuity
- smaller school and smaller class sizes where student is known
- sound curriculum choices (and actual hands on science)
- religion
- special needs of student
- unique programming (Montessori, Waldorf, etc.)
- better equipped facilities

And some families would choose private schools no matter the state of the public school system, because they can. They could care less about what programming a public school does or doesn't offer.

Then..."self-contained smart schools?" This is how a board member refers to district programming?

As to the TAF numbers - can someone explain the numbers? It looks like the heading lists TAF/district/state, but then only lists two numbers for some results.


Anonymous said...

Seattle Times has another commentary on HCC and its history:


Also, not all families choose private schools because of not being able to access HCC. Some of us choose them for different pedagogy such as Montessori, Waldorf, or Catholic or language immersion. There are option schools that have these options or resemble them but they are not a guaranteed placement and most are only in certain locations. My kids went private for K-8 because we wanted a different type of school that we couldn't access in SPS.


Anonymous said...

I have strongly felt that there are several goals here that are being driven by those with the most influence and power. Geary said "it occurs to me they are here because we have created Self-contained smart schools that their children do NOT have access to".

I do think that is a driver of this policy change. Many or most HC students come from middle class and affluent neighborhoods because of a flawed process that does not identify enough low income kids and kids of color.

But returning the overwhelming majority of HC students to their more white middle and affluent neighborhood schools benefits the non-HC middle class and affluent students. In some neighborhood schools HC and spectrum identified kids will be almost half the population of a school.

It's also quite curious that support a cohort program for the top 1%. They are silent on why this o.k. but 2% is not. They should be against any cohort as the top 1% will serve even less of an underrepresented demographic. The difference between 1 & 2 % seems pretty arbitrary, unless your real goal is to return the majority of students to benefit middle and affluent neighborhood schools. So segregation and an exclusive program is more o.k if the group is small? Makes no sense to me.

Think deeper

Stunning said...

I saw Seattle Public School Director, Jill Geary's comment. She did in fact write:

“As I stand in line, the looooong line, for the ISEE (Independent School Exam),….with all these predominantly white families, it occurs to me they are here because we have created Self-contained smart schools that their children do NOT have access to. So whole some argue dismantling a closed highly capable pathway will drive families out of SPS, it appears to have the exact opposite impact. Everyone one wants a challenging, engaging education for their child and we have a system that says we won’t deliver it if your kid isn’t at the tippy top.”

Geary is the loudest person on the board when it comes to segregated classrooms. Yet, there she is standing on line with "white" people seeking testing and entrance into a private school. Does she see the hypocrisy?

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

So Geary says people are applying to private schools because they don't have access to SPS's “Self-contained smart schools".
Haha that is funny because I've always considered that people are applying to private schools because THEY ARE "self contained smart schools" - at least when you look at outcomes/college entry etc. Well off, highly educated or successful people send their kids to private schools because they believe they will get a better education in more carefully controlled setting (ie primarily amongst the progeny of other affluent, educated people) they will at their assigned public school. Critics of HCC have long complained that HCC families are getting the equivalent of a elitist private school education in the public system. Families who actually have kids in HCC will point out that it is nothing of the sort, that it is laughable to even try to compare the two. But what Geary says and what SPS wants to do makes me think this false assumption might be at least part of the reason for dismantling it. For all the talk of equity and representation of students FFEJ, it seems that it might actually be the middle class, white parents, from schools with a high proportion of HCC-eligible kids but who's own kids don't qualify, who think it's unfair (in the same way they thought walk to math and spectrum is unfair) and believe their kids will benefit by having those HCC kids back in the building.
The fact is SPS (whether HCC or general ed) simply can't compete with private schools on the basis of class size, curriculum, selective admissions, individualized instruction and support, or educational outcomes. That is why there is a long line waiting to test in to them.

Smart schools

Melissa Westbrook said...

"...we have created Self-contained smart schools.."

Geary is now disrespecting ALL the other schools, the efforts of their principals, teachers and staff. And, of course, the mystery of how Geary had at least one kid in HCC but now hates it.

"It's also quite curious that support a cohort program for the top 1%."

I think that effort is to fend off lawsuits. There are some kids for whom a Gen Ed class will not work and many of them are the top high scorers.

The HCC program should be reserved for the top 2% of performers. Not the current 9.4% of the SPS population."

People who sneer at or demean children - any child - are not welcome here.

Anonymous said...

“As I stand in line, the looooong line, for the ISEE (Independent School Exam),….with all these predominantly white families, it occurs to me they are here because we have created Self-contained smart schools that their children do NOT have access to. So whole some argue dismantling a closed highly capable pathway will drive families out of SPS, it appears to have the exact opposite impact. Everyone one wants a challenging, engaging education for their child and we have a system that says we won’t deliver it if your kid isn’t at the tippy top.”

Wow. So Geary is actually saying that only "self-contained smart schools" provide a "challenging, engaging education," and that the SPS system won't deliver that for students not in the "tippy top"? Does that include HC student who opted out of the pathway--since they are in the "tippy top" of scores?

Those parents standing in line WITH HER are probably not only predominantly white, but also predominantly well off. They are probably predominantly from schools that are also well off, and that have a high percentage of students identified as AL. But the schools still aren't delivering a ""challenging, engaging education"? Why not? That's the question she should be asking. If nearly all SPS schools fail to deliver a challenging and engaging education to students, that's a problem WAY bigger than AL and HCC. It's a way bigger equity issue, too. Address that problem and all this HCC distraction goes away (and the number of minority students qualifying would probably naturally rise over time, too).

To note, Geary's explanation of why families leave--they want a more challenging education but their child does NOT qualify for HCC--flies in the face of that other argument often used against HCC demographics, that our HCC numbers should be much lower since most HC families leave SPS for private schools. In my experience, it's NOT families of HC students who leave.

all types

Anonymous said...

Again TAF is for students who need accommodations to be prepared for high school. HCC is for students who are prepared to take high school classes in middle school. Both reasonable and should be expected programs in a SES diverse city like Seattle. But they sure as hell shouldn't be in the same building. because either one's going to have to wait or the other ones are going to have to hurry up.

Geary and DeWolf can't seem to get their logic straight. When a school program matches the city demographics it's redlining and segregated. WTH. You only get there if you believe Asians are white.


Anonymous said...

Very few private schools are equipped to serve students working years above grade level. Lakeside is an exception, but is not an option for many families. One private high school we toured even suggested enrolling in Running Start classes for upper level math - meaning, pay for and attend the private school, but access community college for coursework beyond what was offered at the school. Private schools generally aren't equipped to serve extremes on either end of the spectrum.


Anonymous said...

Not same building. Sorry. In the same program. My bad. TAF is all or nothing. HCC is half the school day. In that matter TAF is the more segregated...


Anonymous said...

Juneau lost all credibility about giving it a chance at WMS after Hurricane Emily blew through with a mind-numbing face slapping malpractice without a concern.

Was that all a ploy. Let's make it so bad that they'll leave. Then we have the building to ourselves. Those are probably the people standing in line with Geary.

Internment cramps

Anonymous said...

"The HCC program should be reserved for the top 2% of performers."

Why? What is the meaningful difference between a student scoring in the top 2% and the top, say, 3%? Are they working at different grade levels? Are their IQs different, on average? Are they more/less in need of differentiated instruction? Are they more/less asynchronous in their development? Are they more/less likely to have peers in their neighborhood school?

Cutoffs should be based on need for the service, not arbitrary cut-offs that serve to meet a quota.

Also, as I've mentioned before, it's important to be clear about what you mean by 2% and how that will be determined. You seem to mean the top 2% of scorers within SPS, not those who score within the top 2% nationally. How will we determined the top 2%? Are our current screening tests sensitive enough to discern a top 2% student from a top 3% student, given measurement errors? And what happens when students who score in the top 3% one year retest and score in the top 2% the next year? Does an existing HCC student need to get kicked out so the new 2%er can enter? If not, the percentage will grow over time...

Curricula, and standards, are written for more typical, average students. They are not written for students in the top 2% of nationally normed tests. Regardless of whether 1% or 10% of local students meet that national 2% mark, the typical curricula and standards are not in alignment with the needs of these students.

If people are instead arguing that the baseline level of instruction can be raised in those schools that have overall higher scores and higher percentages of students qualifying asHC or AL, they are essentially arguing for more inequity--that, for example, 3rd grade in one of those schools should be taught to a higher level than 3rd grade in another school across the district. Any argument that insists reducing HCC and returning those schools to their neighborhood school will result in more challenging instruction at neighborhood schools is conveniently hiding the fact that this will create MORE inequity, because that "rigor bump" will be distributed incredibly unequally.

all types

Anonymous said...

Going back to the ethnic studies info - the plan looks to be infusing almost every course with the pedagogy, including IB courses (IB History of the Americas and IB 20th Century were on the list). IB has rather rigid curriculum guidelines, though schools have some flexibility in choosing which specific units they cover. What's not flexible is how students are assessed by IB. SPS seems to be experimenting with some changes to curriculum already, so it will be interesting to see how prepared students are for IB assessments.

random parent

Anonymous said...

Case in point, @all types, is G's mention of adding Calculus 3 to the course catalog at BHS, a "non-HCC" school. Does she not realize there has already been a self selected shift in enrollment of HC qualified students? HC students in the Roosevelt and Ballard draw areas are opting out of the pathway in higher numbers and choosing their neighborhood high school.

random parent

Melissa Westbrook said...

"So Geary is actually saying that only "self-contained smart schools" provide a "challenging, engaging education," and that the SPS system won't deliver that for students not in the "tippy top"? Does that include HC student who opted out of the pathway--since they are in the "tippy top" of scores?"


All Types:
Cutoffs should be based on need for the service, not arbitrary cut-offs that serve to meet a quota."

There is no quota; how you got there is a mystery. Every district is allowed to figure out who needs the service but I have no data on how that varies and how many kids in any given district would be called "highly capable."

Random Parent, I truly doubt that ethnic studies will be highly infused in every course listed because:

1) yes, IB and AP are their own thing and you can't mess with that
2) the huge amount of work to infuse ethnic studies - that mean completely reviewing all curriculum in order to make sure it's in every lesson. (On this point, I am still baffled as no one has explained - in detail - what it would look like. Is it five minutes added to a lesson or more than that?)
3) time in the day to teach. So these kids have to pass these tests so all the info in the test needs to be covered. Again, five minutes per lesson might work but extended discussions will be difficult in order to cover all the topics.

Of course, the head of Ethnic Studies doesn't believe in testing so her take may be not to worry.

Anonymous said...

@Melissa "I think that effort is to fend off lawsuits. There are some kids for whom a Gen Ed class will not work and many of them are the top high scorers."

Still it is interesting they are not fighting against a cohort model for the top 1%. State law is that it does not need to be a cohort.

If equity was the primary driver, they would be simulataneously be stating a plan to change how the kids are identified, and state a policy commitment they will be taking steps so that girls and low income and underrepresented minority groups will all be equally represented. I have not seen much.

This change seems to be driven more by statements from Juneau and Geary that indicate "it has gotten too big", meaning it is taking away too many students from affluent neighborhood schools.

I met multiple parents in elementary who stated if their kid did not test into HC, they would leave for private school. They did. Geary is stating something that is very much a driver toward private school in affluent neighborhoods. It's a perception that HC provides something better to those parents.

I still think it is those neighborhoods that seek to benefit most with the return of their HC students. However boundary changes will cause issues, but maybe they think they have the school capacity now that new schools opened in those neighborhoods.

Once again, I will state that I don't see mobs of people from underrepresented groups driving this change. It is really sad because changes could be made to make HC more representative and apparently experts have made recommendations ignored.

Instead I see very affluent people from affluent neighborhoods driving policy change, along with SPS administration to send the majority of kids who were identified back to their more affluent neighborhood schools.

This program seems to be targeted to change 2% to 1% by the district because too many people with power and influence feel it has gotten too big.

If policy change was truly being driven by equity IMO we would see different kinds f changes to what defines a highly capable program.

There is also likely to be far more equity related issues between our more affluent schools with lots of high performing, well prepared kids and higher minority low income schools.

think deeper

Melissa Westbrook said...

Think Deeper, what does equally represented" mean? Are you saying that until the HCC numbers are proportional to the numbers of those students within the entire district? Equal is a very difficult term here.

Anonymous said...

Respectfully disagree, MW. Schools and teachers can, will, and have created changes in the delivery of AP and IB material. And not all teachers are focused on student performance on AP/IB assessments or covering all of the AP/IB standards.

Read the materials you posted! Curriculum is to be organized around the Teaching Tolerance Social Justice Standards - identity, diversity, justice, and action.

random parent

Anonymous said...

@ Melissa Are you referring to this statement "If equity was the primary driver, they would simultaneously be stating a plan to change how the kids are identified. A policy commitment that states they will be taking recommended steps so that girls, low income and underrepresented minority groups will all be equally represented. I have not seen much."

Yes good question. I meant proportionately represented, not equally. I have concerns that a cohort for the top 1% will be even less representative and not just exclude many minority groups but even girls. Girls for example are a demographic usually do not score
at the highest eds of gifted spectrum.

I also wanted to point out a very affluent parent I knew, who took partial credit for driving the dismantling spectrum at the local middle school, was very concerned about equity. She had one spectrum qualified child and another who did not qualify at the same school. She felt the spectrum class was quiet and highly engaged while her other child was in a classroom where kids were poorly engaged and she said classroom behavior was "very unruly".

So with 5 kids and one qualifying for HCC, I presume Geary might have felt the same which could be a driver behind her supporting these policy changes to drive HC students back to their more affluent neighborhood schools.

Interesting she is looking at private schools? For some parents I knew private school was seen as "an escape" for their kids who did not qualify for spectrum or HC contained classrooms. There was a negative reputation at the local middle school, but high school was viewed as better because their kids could "opt into" AP or IB. It is assumed those classes will offer both rigor and more focused students.

Since private schools also hand pick their students likely they are less rowdy due to the lower class sizes. Also they do not REALLY serve a TRULY diverse group of students which might include those who are special ed or have ADHD etc. Perhaps they are also more responsive to the affluent upper class parent concerns than our big diverse SPS district.

Think Deeper

Anonymous said...

Everyone is welcome to discuss SPS because we are all taxpayers/voters and we are all relying on SPS to teach the younger generations. Yes, we need to listen to parents but we also need to listen to taxpayers/voters. Melissa has as much right to comment on SPS as anyone else does.


Elsa said...

Watch your tone, Fed up.

Unless you happen to be a crony of Harris.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Read the materials you posted! Curriculum is to be organized around the Teaching Tolerance Social Justice Standards - identity, diversity, justice, and action."

I did but I always ask the question - what does that look like in the classroom? Never seen a good answer.

"She felt the spectrum class was quiet and highly engaged while her other child was in a classroom where kids were poorly engaged and she said classroom behavior was "very unruly"."

I have often heard this as a secondary reason to dissolve the cohort. Are HCC more academically driven and so have better focus in class? Do they help drive classroom discussion? Probably. Dissolving the cohort works out well for teachers in this respect but then they probably have a bigger work load to differentiate.

I agree; private schools know the kind of kids they want in there and very much shape their student populations.

HP, thank you for that - you would assume people would realize that.

Anonymous said...

I agree; private schools know the kind of kids they want in there and very much shape their student populations.

Yet I am hearing Geary is looking at private schools, while arguing for "equity" changes in SPS? Yes, private schools to me are the least equitable environments of all as they hand pick their students, including which minority students they admit.

I am not stating she does not care about equity between racial groups, but I wonder if at least part of the motivation for policy change for her is a perception of lack of equity between the peer demographic of kids at her local neighborhood school.

The parent who noticed the difference was comparing a spectrum versus gen ed class at our middle school. Regarding HC and 2E, I believe the spectrum program might have had less kids who are also special ed.

My kid found both more classroom disruption, but also more engaged kids in HC classrooms, as compared to GE. The HC classes were overcrowded. Some classes were highly disruptive as some of my kids peers & friends also had autism or ADHD.

The neighborhood school gen ed program had less kids in the classroom with these issues and smaller class sizes.

Think Deeper

Anonymous said...

I believe Director Geary is moving to Great Britain and is probably giving her family options as they navigate the system changes.


Unimpressed said...

Geary fights against white privilege- until she uses her privilege for a private school entrance exam. Using her own logic, her family shouldn't use private testing for school placement. It appears she supports segregation.

Alsept Teresa said...

@Think Deeper.

Can you please explain what you mean by this “...But returning the overwhelming majority of HC students to their more white middle and affluent neighborhood schools benefits the non-HC middle class and affluent students..”

How, exactly, dies this benefit neighborhood schools?

Alsept Teresa said...

@Fed Up said ..Hey Teresa, that is some good researching there..”

Fed Up- whoever the heck you are- I don’t live in Seattle so I didn’t vote for any of these people and really ....... I could care less who is on the board. I simply hit the link that was given earlier by Chiang in order to help educate everyone. If you don’t want to know fine.. keep your head in the sand and hold your breath

Anonymous said...

Oh great, "Intentional Futures" got nearly $2 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to support NGSS curriculum. You know, garbage like Amplify. If that is Hampson's husband's company, no wonder Chandra never spoke out against Amplify. Don't expect much pushback from her when the next round of online garbage gets pushed by staff.

Intentional Futures Date: March 2015
Purpose: to provide technical assistance for Next Generation Courseware Challenge grantees and to build a vibrant grantee community
Amount: $1,932,631
Term: 33
Topic: Postsecondary Success
Program: United States Grantee Location: Seattle, Washington
Grantee Website: http://intentionalfutures.com/

Reject Amplify

Anonymous said...

@ Melissa,

"There is no quota; how you got there is a mystery." What do you mean? I said "cutoffs should be based on need for the service, not arbitrary cut-offs that serve to meet a quota." A quota can be a minimum or maximum. Saying the top 2% in SPS, regardless of whether the top 5% or whatever are equally qualified for and equally in need of specialized HC services, would essentially by imposing a quota. Not based on who needs what, but rather based on the number of students SPS thinks is acceptable for an HCC type program.

all types

Anonymous said...

@ Teresa Alsept,

I believe @ Think Deeper was getting at something many of us have been saying all along.

Returning most HC students to their neighborhood schools via a major downsizing of HCC eligibility will primarily benefit the non-HC middle class and affluent students who make up the neighborhood schools to which those former HCC students will generally return, because those schools--who already have a lot of pretty-high performing students--will have even more high performing students and can likely raise the level of challenge and instruction a little bit with all those new, advanced classmates joining the school. Less affluent, higher minority schools, however, have low HCC eligibility as it is, so there won't be many former-HCC students returning--and those they won't get that extra bump up in terms of overall school ability and instructional level targeting.

all types

Anonymous said...

I'm curious (concerned) about drug and alcohol use among SPS high schoolers. Kiddo tells me that kids have passed around alcohol at school, are sometimes buzzed in class (says teachers don't notice or don't care), drugs are easily available, and juuling is rampant. This isn't even touching on what happens out of school hours/parties etc. There have been some deaths publicized but thats just the tip of the iceberg. I really don't know what to make of it. I mean i expect some experimentation in the teenage years but not really during school hours and not to such an extent. What do other folks hear? Is it as bad as I'm lead to believe? How do kids/families navigate this? I mean we talk about it with kiddo and obviously discourage it but feels like its an uphill battle when it considered cool to do it and its so widespread. What is SPS doing to address this?

Anonymous said...

sorry forgot to add moniker for above comment,
you can sign it


Melissa Westbrook said...

Anonymous, first, we don't take anonymous comments so next time give yourself any name/moniker.

Second, I'm going to start a thread on this one because that is my impression as well. If you want to know about drug/alcohol use, check your school's climate survey as well as the King County Health Youth data.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Whoops, I missed that Forgetful.

Anonymous said...

@ Teresa Yes, what all types said is my opinion as well. However a downside may be boundary re-draws when HC return in large numbers to those schools. I am also assuming the population will still be as high. The district posted a heat map a few years ago indicating where HC students are most concentrated hailing from which neighborhoods. They pulled heavily from various areas. They are the same areas that already have some of the most overcrowded schools. However new schools have opened or added space in some of those areas, so maybe won't be as much of an issue.

Think Deeper

Anonymous said...

TAF facilitates students who are not likely to be ready for high school to be ready for high school. HCC allows kids in middle school to take high school classes. There is just too much disparity to see how both these programs can co-exist. They simply plan to get rid of the highly capable services. That's the plan. Get rid of them. Not integrate them. Get rid of them.

Anonymous said...

A1 above - sorry epidemic today.

Anonymous said...

A1, Trish and Juneau knows this.

Sure those ~200 students at WMS whom are below standards could use TAF. Put the HCC in a SE school (Aki) and Central area school (Meany). State law requires a continuum of services. Repeating grades is not a continuum. Are those 6th graders going to be able to go to Algebra - Geometry - Algebra II? They have been accelerated in LA and science too. Nope.

Besides TAF should only be an option school. Nobody wants a fight Trish, except Juneau who is the most divisive superintendent since MGJ. Folks remember how that worked out? The district was still reeling from her poor guidance for years after she was fired.

Unicorn tears

Anonymous said...

What about music at TAF? What about sports? What about after school clubs? What if you feel STEM or even STEAM is too limiting?

Can all those lines of thought be dismissed as racist?

No continuum of services is NOT LEGAL. Saying that is racist though, huh.

TAF brings money, right? -- what happens if they no longer have that money? Do they still get our students for THEIR grant applications?

The Board should insist this go through the regular channels - including community outreach - before they decide on this. THERE ARE TOO MANY QUESTIONS. And Juneau is too divisive to be trusted. See the principal she unleashed on to WMS and now LS a pure malpractice-in-action. MW could you have a thread on TAF. Can you also have a thread on Juneau's deceptive practices. She tried to push TAF through without a Board vote?!?! That is very alarming considering we know about 5% and don't know 95%.

2dogs 1cat

Another Parent said...

The law never stopped the district.

A couple years back, my youngest child received a report card for the same grade 2 years in a row. Why? The school decided that reading would no longer be 2 years ahead, but instead 1. When the district ordered the new ELA materials, they ordered them 1 year ahead, not 2. This is not just HCC. Kids that were at our neighborhood school doing walk to math had to repeat a year when the school eliminated walk to math. And so on.

Administratively, advanced learning creates extra work. I had my child's neighborhood principal tell me exactly that. For example, 5th graders doing walk to math 1-year head is difficult. Its much easier just to have everyone in the same class all day. I was told this 7+ years ago and it had nothing to do with "equity". I heard a similar message about HCC from the district manager about too many kids being making it logistically difficult also years ago.

Legally, the district does not have to provide any specific set of services related to advanced learning or HCC. So there is no law to break. Legally, they can define what they want, as long as they define something. Whether or not its ethical or good policy is another question.

Legally, the district is supposed to provide a continuum of services, and I very much believe they have broken the law in this regard multiple times. I use this as a teaching moment for my kids. I explain to them the district and Juneau are breaking the law when they don't provide a continuum of services. Making a student repeat a year of math? That's not a continuum of services and its not only unethical, its illegal.

I explain to my kids that political leaders frequently lie, mislead, and break the law to implement their agendas and that this is not unique to any one party or politics. I explain this is a teleological approach to ethics, where the ends justify the means.

My kids have had really fantastic teachers in SPS. There have been some really helpful administrators who I've also very much appreciated.

Anonymous said...

Juneau needs to go. She is not elevating Seattle in any way.
-long road

Anonymous said...

Parents, ask your State Legislators to help you stand up for your children.

Why is "Walk to Math: wrong for anyone? Why has Juneau done this to this form of Advanced Learning?

SPS urgently needs to be reviewed from the outside.

Legislators, it is time for you to step up. Help the parents and children in your communities.


Irresponsible ST said...

Melissa, Will you please do a thread on this topic. I'm not sure how Seattle Times reporter Dahlia B. keeps her job. She is doing a terrible job and creates hate by claiming that Seattle Public Schools began Advanced Learning Opportunity in the 1970s to prevent white flight.


"How did the HCC program come to be?
The district developed its first accelerated learning program, Horizon, in the 1970s in an effort to entice white parents to keep their kids in public schools after the district began busing students to racially desegregate schools, according to Seattle Times archives."

KUOW actually did their job. Seattle introduced gifted education in 1963,

"Three years later, the Seattle School Board adopted a “Policy for the Education of Able Learners” which said the district has the responsibility to provide educational opportunities for every child that “will challenge his maximum ability” and “meet his individual needs.”
In 1963, the state legislature provided funding for gifted services. Seattle Public Schools used the money to introduce a new program, Accelerated Primary, “with the intent of providing for the individual needs of approximately 2.7% of the city’s able learners.”


Irresponsible ST said...

The district made a POWER POINT claiming HCC was created to prevent white flight.

We need responsible reporting and messaging.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Yes, the Times is just a Gates' mouthpiece at this point about schools. One Times reporter called Bazzaz a "historian." That made me smile because if there were any one education reporter to call a historian, it wouldn't be her.

Irresponsible, yes,messaging. Gotta get to that thread.

Another Parent said...

You are absolutely right, the district powerpoint to the school board claims HCC was created to prevent white flight.

This goes back to my point, "political leaders frequently lie, mislead, and break the law to implement their agendas and that this is not unique to any one party or politics." Juneau is very much a political leader with a political agenda.

Another recent case? The district released its "Honors for All Study", written by the district's Ph.D. director of research. Actually, it was no study, but rather a selection of quotes collected during focus groups that were essentially meaningless without any quantification.

I can understand a difference of opinion; some people think advanced learning should be done in the classroom and some people think there should be pullouts or cohorts. This is an honest difference of opinion and I'm doubtful there is any "correct answer" as there benefits and harms with both models.

But rather than acknowledge the benefits and harms of the various models and having an honest public discourse, the district under Juneau has decided to lie and mislead and intimidate in order to advance its agenda. In my opinion, Juneau's administration is setting a terrible for the district's students.

Acknowledgement needed said...

I'm waiting for Juneau to acknowledge Asian and Multi-racial students in HCC.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Yes, Acknowledgement, that is a mystery. And, that she did it right on the pages of the Seattle Times, is pretty odd. Does the Times not have an editor who tried to add up her numbers for who is in HCC and didn't get 100%?

Anonymous said...

The sooner this board figures out that children are not to be stacked like cord wood, and that schools are not warehouses for children, the sooner they will realize that DJ needs to move on. Not holding my breath—yet.

More Noise Please

Anonymous said...

"....will have even more high performing students and can likely raise the level of challenge and instruction a little bit with all those new, advanced classmates joining the school...."

All Types and Deep Thinker

I actually knew what you meant, I just wanted to make you state it out loud. Do either of you even consider how condescending you sound? I wonder how much either of you really know about non-HCC schools.

We don't really need HCC students there in order to create challenging curriculum. Over the years I've had many HCC students in my classes. Some because they wanted to attend their neighborhood school, some because they liked the music program, and some for various other reasons. For many of them, until they or their parents told me they had previously been in HCC, i would have never guessed. The same is true for Spectrum.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure your students are wonderful children, but the idea that you would some how be doing us a favor by sending them to us is really just kind of silly. I would say that your two statements are the number one reason why so many people have a problem with the HCC program.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Science Teacher, interesting comments. Because what many Gen Ed parents have said to me about the separate cohort is that it's not fair those kids get the rigor that Gen Ed kids don't. And I've had teachers tell me they want the HCC kids back because they help drive discussions in classrooms.

I am glad that you have challenging curriculum and always thought it disrespectful for the Superintendent and/or Board members like Jill Geary to imply there is NOT rigor in Gen Ed classrooms.

Robert said...
This comment has been removed by the author.