tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post1642129811932784948..comments2024-03-28T02:21:17.452-07:00Comments on Seattle Schools Community Forum: Race and Equity; Targeted Universalism (Part Two)Melissa Westbrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17179994245880629080noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-40723104857978862142016-02-17T17:08:20.830-08:002016-02-17T17:08:20.830-08:00It's like having a great working elementary ma...It's like having a great working elementary math program, like Saxon math, then switching to MIF, then switching to whatever they are switching too next. It's an endless loop of killing successful programs then adopting someones fad program without any evidence the program will work. 5 years and 30 million later....woops.<br /><br />Try fail repeat...Try fail repeat. <br /><br />NB2 Parent<br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-44372574900356581552016-02-17T16:13:09.267-08:002016-02-17T16:13:09.267-08:00It am convinced that School Administrators just sp...It am convinced that School Administrators just spend their time looking for projects to justify their jobs and keep themselves busy. Every year a new educational theory to chase with wasteful staff training. It's not just SPS either.<br /><br />NB Parent<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-41063070765830699212016-02-17T13:47:00.363-08:002016-02-17T13:47:00.363-08:00I agree, Outsider--with one exception. You said gi...I agree, Outsider--with one exception. You said giving bright kids appropriate levels of challenging work runs counter to universal goals. I disagree.<br /><br />If the universal goals are concerned only with producing the same outcome for all groups, you're right. For example, if the goal is that all subgroups of students achieve an <i>average</i> of 1800 on the SAT, then any education you provide that might help some groups exceed that level is bad. But if your universal goal is that all groups will score <i>at least</i> 1800 on the SAT, then there's no problem with providing education beyond the minimum. <br /><br />SPS has a universal goal to educate all students. Goal 1 of the strategic plan is to "ensure educational excellence and equity for every student" and specifically to "challenge...each student." Providing appropriate levels of challenging work is thus not counter to, but rather CONSISTENT WITH, that universal goal. <br /><br />At some level, the goal itself seems contradictory, right? How do you provide both "educational excellence" and "equity for every student" when you consider "equity" to be synonymous with "equal outcomes", as SPS often does? If you want all to achieve at the same level, you might need to stop educating some along the way. But then that's not educational excellence for all... I think the answer is in the specific measures used to define the target outcomes. If one measure of success is that all groups have similar graduation rates, then whether some groups <i>exceed</i> the requirements and others only just meet them is irrelevant. Providing appropriate levels of rigor to all and eliminating disparities in key outcomes are not mutually exclusive. It all depends on the specific measures. <br /><br />HFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-21575347402665608832016-02-17T13:34:15.170-08:002016-02-17T13:34:15.170-08:00The SPED silo excuse is laughable. Have the SPED d...The SPED silo excuse is laughable. Have the SPED department stop being a different department. Then they won't be a silo. Oh, but then a bunch of SPED managers might lose their jobs. Oh, but then the general education managers and teachers will have to deal with SPED. Oh, but then we couldn't shuffle SPED students around on a space available basis and that would mess up building capacities. <br /><br />SPED silo could have been eliminated a decade ago or more. The only reason it exists is that the system's employees and leaders want it to exist.<br /><br />-skeptical-Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-10768316956031396562016-02-17T13:23:10.790-08:002016-02-17T13:23:10.790-08:00To add to Mary's post,
http://www.gradnatio...To add to Mary's post,<br /><br /><br /> http://www.gradnation.org/sites/default/files/18383_ce_infographic_washington_vfnl.pdf<br /><br /><br />If you want to raise our districts overall graduation rate you need to focus on all students. You can see in the data that special education students are in the most need of intervention. I don't think SPS has figured out how to package up SPED into one of its pet racial issues and therefor they really aren't interested. <br /><br />Mr. Jessee has run out of excuses. Maybe our new quid pro que civil rights officer can help him out of the silo.<br /><br />Sped parent Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-73864385591493395432016-02-17T13:16:33.351-08:002016-02-17T13:16:33.351-08:00Outsider wrote "p.s. I can't see how Lisa...Outsider wrote "p.s. I can't see how Lisa's example solves the mystery. Targeted dropout prevention and truancy prevention initiatives are uncontroversial and have been tried going back decades."<br /><br />It was just meant to be an example of how targeted universalism also applies to students not in the targeted group. But I think you're wrong about truancy prevention initiatives being uncontroversial unless you're OK with Washington leading the nation in jailing kids for truancy and similar offenses http://www.theolympian.com/news/politics-government/article27020662.html<br /><br />LisaGAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-23087635562841036622016-02-17T13:00:29.627-08:002016-02-17T13:00:29.627-08:00Thank you for posting this. It is very interesting...Thank you for posting this. It is very interesting reading. I don't know a lot about targeted universalism, although I have read quite a bit of john powell's writings. Like you, I don't think he answers the question sufficiently as to why one target one group and not another. <br /><br />I think this is a particularly provacative question in Seattle Public Schools. I attended an oversight meeting last week where the Executive Director of Special Education, Wyeth Jessee, discussed the difficulties of how Special Education exists in its own silo in SPS, and that one of their goals was to move it out of this silo. <br /><br />Yet, in the entire discussion of MTSS-B, which up until now was supposed to be "behavior" is now labeled "attitudes, beliefs, and belonging" seems to be about African American males, and NOT behavior. Here's a fact: students with disabilities are suspended and expelled from Seattle Public Schools just as much as students who are black, and my data says that they are suspended and expelled MORE than students who are black. <br /><br />I am extremely disappointed that by focusing the MTSS B on "attitudes, belief, and belonging," which STILL could be targeting staff attitudes, beliefs, and belonging for students with disabilities as well as race, it seems to only be about race, once again. <br /><br />What gives with making MTSS-B about race, and what about that siloing of students with disabilities, SPS? <br /><br /><br /><br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03542105149501352547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-30981054052449201552016-02-17T12:02:25.041-08:002016-02-17T12:02:25.041-08:00Outsider, I find your use of the word "colorl...Outsider, I find your use of the word "colorless" odd. Is that a new thing? I read "Between the World and Me" and Coates refers to white people as "people who think they are white." <br /><br />I believe if the district drove more money to actual doing than overthinking, they might see better results.Melissa Westbrookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17179994245880629080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-25113895009368917222016-02-17T10:44:34.059-08:002016-02-17T10:44:34.059-08:00Anyone who has experience with a bright but colorl...Anyone who has experience with a bright but colorless child in SPS would know that money is not the issue. I don't want more money spent on my child. I just want him to have appropriate challenging work at school, which costs the same as the too-easy work he is forced to do. The school says no not because of money but politics.<br /><br />Holding back bright colorless kids does not save money (except perhaps that it closes the achievement gap in the cheapest possible way). Giving them appropriate levels of challenging work is not the same as giving them ponies. But it does alas run counter to universal goals.<br /><br />p.s. I can't see how Lisa's example solves the mystery. Targeted dropout prevention and truancy prevention initiatives are uncontroversial and have been tried going back decades. They don't require a grand theory. In Seattle, targeted initiatives to help minorities or disadvantaged students would meet little resistance and would not need the backing of a grand theory. (I suspect; does anyone know of an example of a targeted program meeting resistance because it was targeted? Probably the only source of resistance would be simple lack of discretionary funds. But isn't it reasonable to expect that every dime not tied up in contractual or regulatory staffing formulas will go to targeted programs, with little or no opposition?) Going back to my original query -- either the grand theory is just masters degree puffery, or it has another function.Outsidernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-5149915829605242602016-02-17T09:43:23.810-08:002016-02-17T09:43:23.810-08:00@ Reader,
Education is NOT a zero-sum game. Educ...@ Reader, <br /><br />Education is NOT a zero-sum game. Educational SPENDING may be, but not education itself. Yes, more money directed toward the lowest performing groups will likely mean less money directed toward those already at or above standard, and that makes sense from a societal standpoint--but only up to a point. I doubt many think we should redirect ALL education funding to those below standard, and not spend anything on those at or above. We want those who are doing ok to stay that way, after all, and continue with their educations. <br /><br />Education itself, however, is not a zero-sum game. When one group learns, it does not "undo" learning in another group. The whole intent of our public education system is to educate everyone--so that everyone gains. It may make sense to focus more resources on creating larger gains in those at the bottom, but we want educational gains across the board. Your zero-sum beliefs as they relate to learning seem to suggest that we should place ceilings on those performing above standard and keep them from learning, so that after years of efforts to bring those at the bottom up we might end up with everyone at the same level. Is that really what "equity" looks like?<br /><br />HFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-40039915135423902582016-02-17T09:37:51.302-08:002016-02-17T09:37:51.302-08:00Reader,there are many things we can do that benefi...Reader,there are many things we can do that benefit all our students while benefitting our most vulnerable the most (better start times, smaller class sizes, research based differentiation/achievement based classes, more recess) and some things we can do which only help the bottom achievers. I think this move is sps focusing only on those things which only help the lowest achievers because things that help all our students do not close the achievement gap quite as quickly. Because they, you know, help all students. I am sure that is not the way targeted universalism has to be, but this is sps.<br /><br />Of course it is not a pony to expect your child to learn something at school. Education is for everyone. Literally everyone.<br /><br />-sleeperAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-61066711405545096462016-02-17T09:14:36.672-08:002016-02-17T09:14:36.672-08:00Targeted universalism basically says that a strate...Targeted universalism basically says that a strategy tailored to the specific needs and challenges of your target population will also benefit, to some extent, everyone else. So by targeting the very great needs of group x, you can also help address the lesser--but still important--needs of groups w, y and z. Targeted universalism implies that you have a pretty good idea ahead of time that an intervention will work for all--otherwise you're just targeting, without the expectation of universal benefit. TU also implies the presence of a universal goal. <br /><br />Targeted universalism itself, however, is not universal. Just because something works for one group does not mean it works for others. If a one-size-fits-all approach to education worked, we wouldn't be having this discussion. In cases such as the truancy reduction strategy LisaG mentioned, TU sounds reasonable. But if we're talking about something like curricular rigor or cultural competency, not so much. <br /><br />So the big question is, how exactly does SPS plan to use targeted universalism? We see it here in the context of MTSS, and as an additional support--a supplementary intervention--it makes sense. When your overall approach doesn't seem to be working well for a particular subset of the population, common sense says you'll want to add in some tailored strategies more likely to get the effect you want for that group. You end up with your basic strategy, and some enhanced strategies. But the key is that you don't necessarily abandon all your original strategies in favor of the new targeted approach. Targeted strategies often address unique needs, so DON"T work for everyone. <br /><br />This is of when/where to use TU is where I think SPS could use some clarity--whether in their own thinking or just in their communications, I don't know. Is Targeted Universalism our approach to all of teaching and learning now? Or is it the preferred approach to providing the supplementary supports associated with MTSS? <br /><br />HFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-27637367469692105892016-02-17T07:48:27.775-08:002016-02-17T07:48:27.775-08:00FYI, I did send the Board the links to this series...FYI, I did send the Board the links to this series, along with my top points. I'm not sure if staff ever sent them the research on this topic so I offered mine to them. I'm hoping they go into the Work Session with eyes wide open especially on what this district has done before (and lessons learned) and costs.Melissa Westbrookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17179994245880629080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-15192723977406641442016-02-17T07:46:59.126-08:002016-02-17T07:46:59.126-08:00Charlie is right and that's why I called out t...Charlie is right and that's why I called out the differentiated language in the presentation.<br /><br />I did this series so that parents know that what the research out there says about targeted universalism (in general) is not what the district is doing. It seems to be moving to Oakland's model. Again, that's their choice but I don't want them setting the definition when the Oakland model is just their interpretation.Melissa Westbrookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17179994245880629080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-62867381298913709582016-02-17T06:29:31.802-08:002016-02-17T06:29:31.802-08:00I think that LisaG's example, with the truancy...I think that LisaG's example, with the truancy, is how SPS understands and intends to implement what they call "targeted universalism". As with any such jargon each person using it will provide their own definition - whether there is an official definition or not. Look what they did with "Standards-Based Education".<br /><br />In the end, however, all of this effort is predicated on the use of differentiated instruction and the District has yet to show that they are able to implement differentiation on any scale or with any reliability, so it's all building castles in the air.<br /><br />When is someone on the Board going to call them on that?Charlie Mashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173903762962067277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-79550164429912108092016-02-16T23:51:00.543-08:002016-02-16T23:51:00.543-08:00Outsider. Of course education, like all commoditi...Outsider. Of course education, like all commodities, is a zero sum game. Money spent on one student isn't spent on another. Money is limited. Back to the old ceiling talk. Public ed, like all public services, provides a floor of opportunity, nothing more. And, not a pony for every kid. When some kids aren't getting that floor, society isn't benefitted by giving your kid a pony, just because you've already provided the floor and more for your own kid, especially since it is indeed a zero sum game. But don't worry. Targeted universalism, is just another PowerPoint with a bunch of expensive suits clicking the next button. It will amount to nothing. Maybe it will be the reason for ending a few programs like Spectrum, which retained segregation and did nothing for the targeted groups. But, that was on the chopping block long before anyone ever heard of targeted universalism.<br /><br />ReaderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-71903785034542331872016-02-16T19:58:39.432-08:002016-02-16T19:58:39.432-08:00Lisa --
The actual phrase was "recognize the...Lisa --<br /><br />The actual phrase was "recognize the brilliance and genius of every single child" and I was just too lazy to look it up.<br /><br />There is nothing inherently zero-sum about education, and nothing wrong with trying to help struggling or disadvantaged students. But there is also nothing universal about it. It only becomes universal if the goals set for some students are used as ceilings for others, so the outcomes are equal and equity is achieved. Perhaps that is what they mean by targeted universalism.Outsidernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-30891291564356558092016-02-16T19:26:13.088-08:002016-02-16T19:26:13.088-08:00Outsider wrote " Perhaps "targeted unive...Outsider wrote " Perhaps "targeted universalism" is necessary as a theoretical apparatus to justify applying these methods to children of color, and denying them to the colorless."<br /><br />I don't know how SPS intends to use it, but it doesn't have to be what you said.<br /><br />For example, SPS could have the universal goal that all students graduate. Then they would look at which group is furthest from meeting this goal (presumably African-American males in SPS). Then they would analyze why this group is not meeting the goal. Maybe (just hypothetical for the purposes of an example) they find out that this group also has high rates of chronic truancy which could be lowering graduation rates. Then they would formulate a plan to reduce chronic truancy, and get approval of the plan from their equity teams and community based organization.<br /><br />However, when the plan to reduce chronic truancy is implemented, it would apply to all students, not just the group of students furthest from the universal goal. Some students outside the targeted group would also benefit, although likely at lower rates. For students, in targeted and untargeted groups who are not chronically truant, it would only have indirect effects (maybe reducing teacher time spent on catching up students who are chronically truant).<br /><br />But I don't understand the "celebrating the genius in each child" mission. Even if you believe there is "genius" in each child, shouldn't the mission of a school be not to celebrate, but to teach, prepare, develop or something else along those lines?<br /><br />LisaGAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-44755569237994340072016-02-16T18:06:14.222-08:002016-02-16T18:06:14.222-08:00I cannot say what is in action here but the actual...I cannot say what is in action here but the actual presentation as it reads sounds a lot like #1.Melissa Westbrookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17179994245880629080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-57982275498823844202016-02-16T17:40:13.098-08:002016-02-16T17:40:13.098-08:00Here is a thought experiment: ask yourself what c...Here is a thought experiment: ask yourself what concrete policy, program, or practice related to equity would not be possible without this big theoretical apparatus of "targeted universalism." Not obvious.<br /><br />Two theories:<br /><br />1) The people at headquarters are just trying to use the stuff they learned in their masters degree programs, and it means nothing.<br /><br />2) It's required to deal with an awkward problem with the teaching methods they talk about. Celebrating the genius in each child, and differentiating instruction in a data-driven way, if applied equally, would benefit the stronger students even more than the students they care about. Apply everything in the PowerPoint doc equally, and the achievement gap is <b>100% guaranteed to increase</b>.<br /><br />Oops. Perhaps "targeted universalism" is necessary as a theoretical apparatus to justify applying these methods to children of color, and denying them to the colorless.Outsidernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-85579507733629075242016-02-16T14:34:58.892-08:002016-02-16T14:34:58.892-08:00It would seem another name for "targeted univ...It would seem another name for "targeted universalism" could be "common sense." Identify your overall goals, then identify strategies that will get you there. Of course the same strategy won't work for all, so you have multiple strategies, targeted to the needs of different subgroups. You'll probably want to focus additional attention on efforts to reach those most in need, but you still need to provide effective strategies to everyone else at the same time. This all seems so obvious, it's crazy. <br /><br />Note: SPS likes to say that by targeting those with the greatest needs it will help everyone. No, implementing effective strategies will help everyone. Using specific strategies to target those with the greatest needs is only one part of the solution, not the entire solution. If JSCEE would clearly identify the outcomes they are trying to achieve, the specific indicators and they will use to measure whether these efforts are successful, and the specific strategies they will use to try to bring about those changes, they would be in a lot better position. They'd probably also be able to finally understand and effectively communicate what the heck it is they are trying to do. Right now it seems that they are as confused as the rest of us.<br /><br />HFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com