Seattle Schools Community Forum

The current advanced learning task force has been charged with reviewing the systems and processes for qualifying students for Highly Capable services and Advanced Learning programs in Seattle Public Schools. The committee is supposed to work toward a shared approach for determining which students qualify for Highly Capable services and Advanced Learning programs that best benefits students. Although it is not stated anywhere in the charge to the task force, the members have been told that their goal is to increase representation in advanced learning programs by under-represented groups. It's unclear why this goal is not overtly stated in the charge document. We should discuss it as well.

From Shauna Heath: We have had several questions regarding the AL Task Force. I have included information about members and member selection below and provided more detail about the entire task force in the attached draft charter. The draft charter will be brought before the Task Force to finalize at the meeting on Oct. 23, 2013. Our Taskforce Members Baker Harvey, Bruce; Bennett, Erinn P; Bower, Stephanie; Boy, Ronald D; Campbell, Carri J; Clemons, Noelle; Daniels, Roger; Geoghagan, Rina; Heath, Shauna L; Herman, Gail; Hertzog, Nancy; Hochwalt, Nisha; Horrigan, Meg; Horwich, Lisa; Huff, Sumiko ; Libros, Tracy; Martin, Stephen B; Ruiz, Bernardo; Schweickhart, Vicky; Simon, Brenda; Skjei, Terri; Triandofilou, Katherine; Vasquez, Kathleen; Watters, Cindy J; Whitworth, Kim; Williams, Sharmila Naidu Member Selection Because this is a task force and not an advisory committee we invited members. The invites went to all members of the Advanced Learning Advisory Committee, parents of hig...

This is an e-mail I sent to Al Interim Director, Steven Martin.  I cc'd the Board, Shauna Heath and Michael Tolley. Dear Mr. Martin, As a former member of the Advanced Learning Taskforce - who served for a year and was asked to stay on for the next year (which never materialized and with no explanation) - you can imagine my surprise to learn there are TWO AL Taskforces already in place.  I am very disappointed to not even be asked to serve when my knowledge of the subject and the programs in this district is quite deep. My questions to you are the following: - how were members chosen? - are the committees now full?  If not, how may one apply? - why was there no public process or even notice? - who are the members and what is their connection to AL? - how many meetings have there been? - where are the minutes of the meetings available? - when are the meetings for both taskforces?  Where is that info available to the public? If you don't know the answers to the...

From the Friday Memo to the Board of October 4 : Advanced Learning Task Force Advanced Learning has contracted with a facilitator, Barbara Grant to help guide two task forces this year. The first is focused on the identification of students for highly capable services, with particular attention to reaching culturally diverse and underserved populations of gifted students. This group begins its work on October 10th, and expects to have recommendations by November 29th. The second task force will focus on service delivery models (APP, Spectrum, ALO, and other options) and will begin meeting in December in order to make recommendations by mid-February. Task force members are a diverse group invited from the community and SPS staff. So who are these Task Force members? Anyone know? Any of our readers among those chosen to participate in these secret meetings?

Let's hear your thoughts (I haven't read them yet.) Please note; be useful/polite or be deleted.

Our friends over at CPPS (Community and Parents for Public Schools of Seattle) are looking for your stories. From Stephanie Jones, Executive Director: I am seeking parents who may have been involved in boundary conversations around the NE or AP.  (Editor's note: this is her need here as Stephanie went to most of the other meetings.) CPPS is working on a newsletter that will highlight parent/community stories from around the city about the impacts of boundaries and some of the change themes that are repeating from region to region. I am really interested in perspectives that highlight the community level concerns – walkability and community integrity are things I’m hearing a lot, as well as equity.   Anything else?  In particular, do you have a personal story or can you refer me to someone who does about how boundary changes? I’d like just a paragraph or a few sentences, but am happy to see any background info (letters to board, etc) that people are ...

A LOT of info in these links.  And a reminder - don't like gifted education, on principle or in specific?  Don't read this thread.   I offer this as information, not to start a fight.  There will be no comments on this as it is purely informational. Back to School Means Back to Segregated Gifted Programs for Some: New Book with Solutions.  From PRWeb: Vanderbilt education professor Donna Y. Ford has made it her mission to end segregation in gifted programs—a mission she’s not backing down from without a fight. Her recently released book, "Recruiting and Retaining Culturally Different Students in Gifted Education" (published by Prufrock Press Inc. this summer), details Ford's participation in a 2013 court case in which one Illinois school district was accused of discrimination against Hispanic students in its gifted program (the full report of the court case was released to the public in July 2013) and provides solutions for schools looking to ensure...

I recently wrote to the Board with some of the bigger ideas that I have heard here and percolated up from the Growth Boundary meetings.   Here's what I told them about Wilson-Pacific: What I hear from parents is that they do NOT want to share their valuable neighborhood space with any program if they don't have to.  APP is NOT a beloved program and it will not be welcomed with open arms anywhere in the N/NE.  Why set up a situation like that especially if it may end up that the program might need to be exited? I honestly believe the right course is to leave APP elementary North at Lincoln.  Permanently. (Clearly, not the whole building but it sets up great possibilities.)  You could even have an APP 1-8 there and believe me, it would make many people (pro and con APP) happy.  But what about Lincoln as a high school?  Look, it is really close to Roosevelt already, has virtually no field space and needs massive updates.  So the sol...

The FACMAC made a response to the Growth Boundaries plan. You can read the summary of the response here . Here's the short version: Include high schools now. They take the longest to address, there isn't that much time, and the system is integrated. Instead of messing with nearly all of the elementary school attendance areas and middle school assignments, leave most of them essentially unchanged and put all of north-end 1-8 APP at Wilson-Pacific. Put APP there and you can leave almost everyone else alone. Adjust elementary attendance areas only as needed. Re-assign the elementary school - middle school feeders only as needed to add a middle school and adjust for the removal of APP from Hamilton. Rethink some of the BEX IV investments to more closely reflect what we will need and when we will need it.

The District is committed to creating an optional 1-8 APP pathway in West Seattle. It is written into the Growth Boundary plan and program placement has been made at Fairmount Park and Madison. But what will this optional pathway be like? Can it be self-contained? If not, then what? And what does this proposal mean for service delivery for APP elsewhere in the District? What, in fact, is the District's intent around student identification and service delivery for advanced learning after MTSS has been implemented - or, to be more precise, after the District claims that MTSS has been implemented? This is all pure speculation. There is simply no way to know before the fact, but we can look ahead and we can make some deductions. We do have some facts: The District is committed to an alternative 1-8 APP pathway in West Seattle. There are not enough APP-eligible students in West Seattle form a full cohort for the self-contained model. The District is committed to implementing M...

It was a full house but frankly, not as full as I thought it would be (and certainly not the crowd that Charlie had - Tracy Libros said there were at least 250 people at Monday's event).   There were three legislators there - Rep. Jamie Pedersen, Rep. Gerry Pollet and Senator David Frockt.  I saw just two Board members - Director DeBell and Director Peaslee (odd that Martin-Morris wasn't there - this is his region).  There were also several members of the FACMAC committee. I sat at a table with parents worried about several issues but they seems resigned.  I also sat with two reporters from the Roosevelt News.  They worry over losing diversity at their school and overcrowding.  I set them up to talk with Shauna Heath.  Big Picture A couple of themes I came away with that I hope ALL parents understand. This is a serious situation (and probably more serious than the district is letting on although Flip Herdon did let two things slip that s...

This is going to be yet another rant of mine about program placement. I know that I go on about this, but it continues to be a sore point for me. I imagine that some folks must be really tired of reading about this topic, so I will put everything after the jump.

First, the headlines: The big winner is K-5 at Boren, soon to be K-8 STEM at Boren. The big loser is Pinehurst K-8, soon to be closed and clearly treated with bad faith. APP breaks even, getting everything expected, most of it where expected, some of it in difficult spaces but with an extraordinary accommodation that should prove very beneficial in the long term. There isn't likely to be much fighting over the boundaries, the fight will be over the transition plan that dictates who goes into interim sites, when, and for how long. With regard to STEM, the District staff showed itself to be surprisingly reasonable and open to discussion. With regard to Pinehurst, the District staff showed itself to be dishonest and downright mean. With regard to the APP sites, the District staff showed itself to be surprisingly thoughtful. With regard to the transition plan the District staff showed itself to be timid, but politically savvy. The Board, at every step, showed itself to be ...

Eligibility testing begins in October for accelerated learning programs Seattle Public Schools provides opportunities for academically advanced students in grades K-8 to qualify for accelerated learning programs. Additional information and application forms for eligibility testing can be found here . Applications are also be available in school offices and in the lobby of the John Stanford Center, 2445 3rd Ave. S. Eligibility testing for the 2014-2015 school year begins in October. Applications are due by Thursday, Oct. 3.

I mean, seriously, why does this district bother?  To explain, it was noted by several readers that the testing schedule for Advanced Learning programs is NOT in the school calendar.  And, by law, they have to supply public notice (at least for APP).  You'd think the calendar , going to every single family in the district, would be the ideal place.  You'd think the first-day packets , going to every single family in the district, would be the ideal place. You'd apparently be wrong. So I wrote to the Board and the Superintendent: Special Service Program Highly Capable Students WAC 392-170-042 Annual notification. Annual public notification of parents and students shall be made before any major identification activity. The notice shall be published or announced in multiple ways in appropriate languages to each community in school and district publications or other media, with circulation adequate to notify parents and students throughout the distric...

From SPS Communications: Seattle Public Schools would like to thank those organizations and businesses that sponsored the District’s 2013-14 wall calendar and family guide, which will be mailed soon to Seattle Public Schools students, families and staff. Sponsors include : Boy Scouts of America, Comcast, Defensive Driving School, Delta Dental, Foster Pepper, PCC Natural Markets, The Northwest Network, Safeway, Seattle City Light, The Seattle Public Library, Sound Mental Health, and Stevens Pass.  “We appreciate the support of our sponsors who ensure we can continue providing the calendar to our families,” said SPS Chief Communications Officer Lesley Rogers. “Without these businesses and organizations, the district would eventually have to stop producing this important publication, which provides families and staff with important news and information throughout the year.” The calendar, which features photos of students and staff, is scheduled to be mailed...

K-5 STEM at Boren needs a permanent home. The District is currently thinking of using the Schmitz Park building, but the school is already too big for that building. Are we spending tens of millions of BEX IV money to take kids out of portables at Schmitz Park just to put a lot of other kids into portables at Schmitz Park? That doesn't make any sense. E C Hughes is another possible location, but it's not much bigger. Either choice would mean moving the kids out of a real building at Boren and into portables at the other site. Either choice would mean committing the District to spend tens of millions to renovate the chosen site to make it suitable. It will be difficult to find the money in BEX IV or BTA. Fairmount Park, by the way, is really needed as an attendance area school. Not only does West Seattle need the additional capacity, but take a look at the map. West Seattle has a string of elementary schools in the north and a belt of them in the south, but none in the middle ...

A reader, Budget Reader, asked some questions about the seemingly low budgeting for APP@Lowell/Lincoln (which to most people's minds are two schools but not to the district).  BR followed through and asked the district's Joe Paperman.  I thought it worth having its own thread for institutional memory and because several parents have asked the same questions. This is NOT a thread to start in on APP (so please don't). A thank you to both BR and Joe Paperman for doing this work. From BR: As a follow-up to my earlier post about the budget document and APP @ Lincoln, I sent my questions to Joe Paperman, who is in charge of budgeting for the District. He was kind enough to send a detailed response:

 To note, it appears there will be no other district/Board meetings after the July 3rd Board meeting until early August. Wednesday, July 3rd   School Board meeting at 4:15 p.m. - Agenda Even during the sleepy summer months, a lot is happening.  At this meeting, the Strategic Plan will be voted on.  The Board will heard a report about FERPA re: Common Core and the student data "cloud." (I will be putting out a white paper on this topic so look for that.)  The Board will vote to extend the Superintendent's contract by one year to June 2016.   (They are not considering a raise until after bargaining agreements are done and the district's budget is set.  I personally would not be for a raise at this point in time.  Apparently, according to the item, there is no public input sought on the issue of a raise or extension of his contract.) Hey and look what is delayed (again)?  It's the Highly Capable Student Program State Grant .  No...

Per Rachel Cassidy, the District demographer, 12% of Seattle Public School students in grades 6 to 8 living in the McClure, Whitman, Hamilton, and Eckstein attendance areas are enrolled in middle school APP. You read that right. 12% of north-end middle school students are in APP. How can this be possible? The program is intended for students in the top 2% nationally for cognitive ability and in the top 5% nationally for reading and math achievement. Sure there will be some local variations from 2%, but to be a full ten percentage points above the national mean seems a bit... much.