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 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.
Highlights
What's on your mind?
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.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.
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.
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.
Highlights
- 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%.
What's on your mind?
Comments
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
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.
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).
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
https://intentionalfutures.com/work/designing-for-student-success
Fed Up
"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
benefit of doubt
good deals
JS
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.
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.
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."
Lame
In or out
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.
Lame
"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 "
https://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/School%20Board/19-20%20agendas/November%2012/20191112_Agenda.pdf
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...”
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
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
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
Nutz jobz
File a fraud claim or something if you're so sure you are right and their own website is wrong.
Lame
I would appreciate dialing back on tone and talking more about issues.
"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
DM
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
If the post was on SPS Community Facebook page, you would be told to sit and feel uncomfortable.
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.
DM
A1
Data person
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
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
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
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.
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.”
sss.westbrook@gmail.com
http://handbill.us/2019/11/09/the-seattle-public-schools-condescending-racism/
More noise please
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.
delusional
https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/seattle-public-schools-leans-on-history-to-change-its-gifted-education-program-heres-what-the-archives-show/#comments
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.
HP
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
“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?
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
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.
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
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.
A1
reality
A1
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
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
random parent
random parent
Right.
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.
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
Read the materials you posted! Curriculum is to be organized around the Teaching Tolerance Social Justice Standards - identity, diversity, justice, and action.
random parent
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
HP
Unless you happen to be a crony of Harris.
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.
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
Krab
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?
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
https://www.gatesfoundation.org
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
"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
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
you can sign it
forgetful
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.
Think Deeper
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
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
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.
-long road
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.
Enough
https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/faq-whats-next-for-seattle-schools-gifted-programs/
"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.”
https://www.kuow.org/stories/cold-war-anxiety-and-affirmative-action-the-dawn-of-gifted-education-in-seattle-schools?fbclid=IwAR2tDgdhcO9aoO_8yMcZGwMNtobjPHKNDqQnUIrR5B-gKmnPBaGjXIE7SIs
We need responsible reporting and messaging.
Irresponsible, yes,messaging. Gotta get to that thread.
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.
More Noise Please
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.
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.