Reading some of the comments about various high school pathway options I sometimes feel a disconnect between what commenters are most vocally concerned about and what I see is the critical issue of the moment. I also think there is a larger conversation to be had about the nature of the high school program but that is not the place we find ourselves today. In the last board meeting there was a vote where a majority of the board voted to dissolve the high school pathway completely. Most of the board members are on record and will vote that way again despite the current round of planning. The chance of anything remaining is dependent on convincing four directors that they are still important. Ultimately, its crucial that in analyzing pro/cons of the alternatives we don't lose sight of the larger stakes and that folks are consistent in stressing this part of the message. This may mean rallying around a plan that is imperfect rather than suffering a much greater loss and I realize that's a hard pill to swallow given various individual circumstances.
To that end I want to make the case that indeed this is true and its crucial to emphasize that HC students still need a pathway.
Critical Mass:
In order to create classes that meet advanced learners needs and continue the sequence of study that has already occurred in Middle School there needs to be a sufficient number of advanced learners at any site. At lower grades two classrooms worth of kids is assumed to be enough. The complexity of High School scheduling makes it critical that they are there in large enough numbers to allow flexibility. For example, if the single Band class half of the kids are in is at the only period AP US history is offered there is a problem. Based on the number of classes at some but not all of our High Schools even adding in the neighborhood HC students does not reach this minimum bar. This is most clearly evident in the Math/Science pathways where classes like Calculus BC are not offered at many high schools due to insufficient demand. Given the tight budget and classroom space constraints the district operates under its simply not realistic to assume classes of non-viable number of students will be offered. But in small ways across every class experience with large numbers of outliers can inform better teaching, curriculum, and focuses for a school in a way that doesn't happen when you don't see as many students.
Oversight and Advocacy:
The second advantage of the pathways is they provide leverage for families. Once spread out its not very easy to advocate for student's needs. 60 kids in a sea of 1500 are ignorable. The cohorts also enable families to reach out to to each other and advocate en masse for the system to change. The converse side of this situation, is the more sites that exist, the harder any systematic oversight becomes. Over and over again we see various initiatives in the district fail to be consistently carried out across buildings due to site based management. Advanced Learning is even more subject to this variance in implementation given its political nature.
What about everyone else?
One of the the most common complaints I've read is along the lines "I have a Spectrum student who will have to go X. Its not fair there are limited opportunities at X." I'm sympathetic to this line of argument. My main educational philosophy is meet kids where they are at and provide the classes they need. I think there are two answers to this issue. First, many of the class/grade combinations that we're talking about are unique. The HCC students need a 9th grade Chemistry class that doesn't conflict with the rest of their 9th grade schedule for instance. At most of our high schools a student on a regular non-accelerated track does have reasonable access to core AP classes and most families are satisfied. Like above, having sufficient numbers of students at the same grade requiring the same general classes make this possible. There are also some schools which where more families end up having to access Running Start by the senior year due to missing classes. In some cases, the demand is already there and the principals need to be pushed to meet it. In others, we really need to consider letting kids move buildings to access unique needs (I don't think this is an issue for a huge number of students) .
Capacity:
Finally, from a purely pragmatic point of view, HC students play an important part in overall capacity management. This is a body of students who will move voluntarily to a different site if there is compelling programming. Given the space constraints of Seattle Public we should be taking advantage of this phenomena and not exacerbating the space issue by funneling students towards already overcrowded sites. The neighborhood school plan has the most domino effects and disrupts the most students in general because of the misalignment between buildings and student populations.
101 comments:
Benjamin,
I’m curious how you formed this opinion: At most of our high schools a student on a regular non-accelerated track does have reasonable access to core AP classes and most families are satisfied.
It seems like an excuse to ignore the needs of non-HCC students.
Anon, what core AP classes are missing if you come in at Physical Science, and we'll even say Geometry? Your math and science pathway would look like this:
9: Physical Science, Geometry
10: Biology, Algebra 2
11: Chemistry, Precalculus
12: Physics, Calculus AB
All schools have all of those classes. Most schools have at least one more science class(I am not sure about the IB schools, but that is a different program) for an elective. No schools currently have 3 more science classes than that so that HC students could also take both a 4 year pathway and a science elective like gen ed students can. Only 3 schools have Calculus BC so that HC students can take 4 years of math, and the dispersion plan does not send enough students schools that don't already have it to create new classes. Maybe it would create a new section at Roosevelt, which already has Calculus BC.
NJP
I am guessing but think Benjamin means that there are a majority of kids on a regular track so they have the critical mass already needed to drive classes. However, being a minority (ex who needs 9th grade Chemistry to fit in with other classes) HC kids can have difficulty accessing the classes that fit within their schedule. They probably would have to hope they can build their schedule around those classes without intentional programming. If you have a large group you don't need intentional programming as there is loads of students so multiple sections offered at different times. In addition schools like Garfield and Ingraham would due to critical mass would tend to offer classes with more same age peers, although older students might also be in the class.
However, overpopulation at all the high schools is currently a factor affecting all kids (HC and non-HC) ability to access certain classes.
J
In the last few months, I've been convinced that my student would attend Garfield, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Hale and Ingraham! The second I feel like one of them seems the most likely destination, boom, another one becomes more likely. This is a whiplashy way to provide a continuum of service to my student. I wouldn't mind the vollying back and forth so much if I felt convinced through all this that the district's primary motivation were to provide the best possible education to the most possible students, but I do not feel convinced of this.
At the last board meeting it sounded like getting rid of pathways in 3 or 4 years was pretty much a done deal. The superintendent and at least one board member spoke of it like it was a done deal. And of all the places the district has toyed with sending my student, the one I feel least confident will be able to provide a continuum of service to my student is the one we would be assigned to if there are no pathways (or "pathways for all"). It makes me sad how much of the focus is on where to send my child and how little is on how to educate my child once there.
I think the major issue is not how to serve these students it is that the Board and many of the Principals and leading staff do not believe that the gifted and talented even exist let alone have non-academic needs.
Arguments around AP/IB courses detract from the fact that these courses themselves are not gifted services. Access and acceleration into these courses meets an academic need. However, access alone is not a gifted service. Acceleration can be a response to gifted needs but the elephant in the room is that there are no school level plans for gifted services beyond saying they have access to AP/IB coursework and where the majority of enrolled students are not HC identified. So is it a guaranteed service? No, it is not. The cohort itself is the social-emotional support component that is the only provided gifted service.
Once a pathway is dissolved and students spread out to various schools the district will have to confront this fact that they have no plans or procedures for school level compliance with state law and with best practice. Every school in the district will need a gifted coordinator and all staff intensive and ongoing training to meet the needs of these students.
A pathway makes sense from an economy of scale point of view. If the district is going to do away with that then it must have an actual plan that principals cannot simply ignore. There must be a compliance mechanism and based on the atrophy of AL options and it's utter invisibility at the school level then this mechanism will have to be entirely new. I look forward to that process.
Mr. Theo Moriarty
@Anon 8:19pm
"I’m curious how you formed this opinion: At most of our high schools a student on a regular non-accelerated track does have reasonable access to core AP classes and most families are satisfied.
It seems like an excuse to ignore the needs of non-HCC students."
- Most high schools already offer AP.
- Students do NOT have to be HCC qualified to take AP courses. HCC status is NOT a barrier.
- Wyeth Jessee and other district officials have made a point of saying that 90% of students who take AP courses in SPS are NOT HCC qualified, so non-HCC students are already receiving advanced coursework.
I think Ben's conclusion that "most" non-HCC students do already have "reasonable access" is a reasonable one.
st
It would be interesting to see the numbers on Running Start in the district and see how they break down by school. To the extent that students are not able to find the classes they need right now, you would expect the Running Start numbers to somewhat reflect this. This should be an easy report to run. You could also run a report on the percentage of Running Start credits being taken by HC vs. GE students. That would tell you if HC students are having a harder time finding necessary courses. Again, should be an easy report to run.
In my experience, many HC students do fine socially among non-HC peers, but many others just do not. I don't know if it's partly the extent of the giftedness or what, but it would make sense that a kid at the 95th percentile would have an easier time relating to grade-level peers and would be more likely to share common interests than a student at the 99.6th percentile. With the possibility of a dispersed HCC model on the horizon, I very much fear for those higher IQ students who will be much less likely to encounter similar students. I feel like those in charge down at JSCEE have no idea what it's like to be so different, and how important it is for such students to have access to intellectual peers. Sufficient cohort size is essential.
worried
There is some additional money coming from the state to help increase equitible access to HC services. SPS needs a plan that will improve stats of POC while still providing services to those identifying as Hicap.
It seems that having Hicap students at every high school is highly aspirational and certainly worth setting as a goal, one that is befitting a ten year vision roadmap, but the real work to make this possible would be to:
1) improve identification process at elementary level, followed by opportunities for services in a cohort (HCC) in each quadrant as well as a standard HC service offered in ALL neighborhood elementary schools (walk to, grouping, one day per week enrichment...some expert decide and create a template for all schools to use and mandate the roll out while providing support such as curriculum and subject matter expert mentoring). Do this within 1-2 years.
2) Hicap Students won’t be ready for the HC pathway sequence in high school if they don’t take the math and science sequence currently offered at our four HC Middle Schools. If SPS wants enough HC students to create need for those higher science/math classes at all high schools across the district, then they have to add access to more classes at the neighborhood middle school level, otherwise they will continue to have the clusters or hot spots currently happening. Do this within 3-5 years, after the elementary solution is in place and a pipeline is created.
3) Once the pipeline of elementary and middle school HC services and identification processes has been improved, add HC pathways to each high school that meets a minimum number threshold, with a linked school approach for schools in the vicinity that don’t have the numbers yet. Do this starting now for schools with at least 120 HC students per class, with the plan to adjust as we learn and the vision to have all high schools running HC services within ten years.
Fix AL
I'm hoping my writing stands for itself but I based my thinking on some of the reasons others inferred above as well as what other high parents have said or written and a lot of looking through the master schedules at the various sites. To reiterate, the system is decent but imperfect. I already threw out a few suggestions for what else I think needs happen above.
The district has a terrible track record of trying to implement an advanced learning program across all schools. Remember when it was said that all schools had an "advanced learning option" at elementary schools? Very few of them did. There was no apparent guidance from the District about how to do this or what it means, and no enforcement of what the program was across all schools (this was largely left up to principals to decide if they wanted to implement - the vast majority did not in a meaningful way). This idea of getting rid of HC pathways and dispersing kids into neighborhood schools should be done deliberately and with some planning (and planned oversight). Without this, it is doomed, again, to failure.
Seen It
Even at schools with pathways, what enforcement or oversight exists? It's not just students who will get dispersed, but teachers as well. If teachers are left with little administrative or peer support, and the district fails to have any sort of actionable plan, it's difficult to see this playing out in a way that provides any assurance of an appropriate 9-12 pathway.
And Running Start? Oh my, where to start? Classes are not designed with AL students in mind. Some of the higher level calculus based math and science classes may be better than what's offered at some high schools, but other classes...so varied.
The HC IB/IBX option at Ingraham high school would still draw 360 or more HC students at 90/grade. So under the "District Vision" of the 10 HC Pathways Plan at each comprehensive high school, in descending order based on the latest 2017-18 figures the actual HC pathway cohort sizes in Seattle high schools would be:
* INGRAHAM AA PROPOSED HC PATHWAY = 5 HC/grade + 95 HC IB/grade = 20 HC + 379 HC IB/IBX
* ....ROOSEVELT = 66 HC/grade = 264 HC
* ......BALLARD = 56 HC/grade = 223 HC
* ......LINCOLN = ? HC/grade = ? HC
* .....GARFIELD = 43 HC/grade = 170 HC
* .....FRANKLIN = 24 HC/grade = 94 HC
* .WEST SEATTLE = 23 HC/grade = 93 HC
* ......HALE AA = 14 HC/grade = 57 HC
* .CHIEF SEALTH = 11 HC/grade = 43 HC
* RAINIER BEACH = 8 HC/grade = 32 HC
All of the Seattle high schools north of the Ship Canal would have reasonably large pathway cohorts joined by other advanced learners, with the exception of Nathan Hale whose Lake City attendance area includes some of the most diverse and low-income parts of the city.
In contrast, none of the Seattle high schools south of the Ship Canal including Garfield have large pathway cohorts that would then drive advanced AP learning opportunities either for their HC students or for their general education students -- eg, Chief Sealth at 11 HC/grade, or Rainier Beach at 8 HC/grade.
If the actual result of this plan would be to reduce AP offerings for those high school students who live in our most diverse school neighborhoods, there is no principled equity justification for that switch. The answer to the obvious and unacceptable demographic underrepresentation in the Seattle HC cohort lies instead in early identification, specifically including universal testing: our opt-in to test for HC system should be replaced by an opt-out from testing for HC system. Reducing AP class offerings overall or limiting them based on address is not an equitable answer.
A more detailed survey of the proposed 10 HC Pathways cohort sizes follows in the next post.
I saw this on the SSS blog:
thanks eric!
so isn't this a zero sum gain? ap and honors classes not needed now at ghs so they can go to lhs if the students aren't there? we have split schools before why not split ghs with lhs. and we have more time than the other splits. you can still do a roll up you just need to add the few 9th grade hcc classes in 2019 and then the 10th grade ones in 2020. this is a ton less heavy lifting then making every school a hcc school in 2020. director patu is right fhs has found its sweet spot. if we make every school a hcc school too there then there is really no choice. the simple and easiest thing to do for hcc hs for the next five years is to open lhs as a hcc split from ghs. as director burke said they want lhs to ge a great a challenging school how is that better when the slate is clean to make that happen. and if it is done correctly (not like jams) then they will draw back away from ibx, rhs and bhs. this will open room for kids that wanted into those three schools but probably couldn't because of overcrowding.
this makes the south like the north.
this has much less disruption.
this will save money over time.
this will mean sps is not making more false promises.
put this idea against any staff has proposed and it would be hands down the favorite across the stakeholders. (director burke asked for this but for some reason staff couldn't figure out how to draw maps that would correlate to this. that is unbelievable.)
seriously we are adding 2,000 seats in the north and staff came up with some of the worst options on how to spend this largesse. including having neighborhood kids, many of who are hcc identified, to commute to ghs. good god you can't make this stuff up. (if they stick with this then they should at least yellow bus these kids).
staff has been playing the board. thoughtexchange data and cards don't represent the vitriol that was expressed at the community meetings. this whole thing has been a three ring circus with staff orchestrating their desires, not those of teachers, students or parents. this has been a lessen in bureaucratic malpractice the likes i have ever seen. then they present false choices and strawman options.
just because you tell all schools they need to have a hcc program doesn't mean they can afford the handful of classes that accelerated students need and would be really expensive at nova, center, fhs, hale, beach and etc.
we can't wish kids into aviation high, or hope that the cohort will grow to insure this makes sense. (especially if there is really no reason to continue with the program as there really is no program left).
imho
The 2017-18 numbers calculations for each of the 10 proposed HC "pathways" are here:
What Size Would 10 High School HC Pathways Really Be?
The published 2017-18 figures are supplemented here by details from the 2016-17 Annual Enrollment Report, Tables 4D, 4E, and 6C:
Students in High Schools by Attendance Area, Annual Enrollment Report, 2016-17 Data, Tables 4D & 4E
High School Open Choice Assignments by Home Attendance Area [which includes Ingraham HC IB/IBX Option, but not Garfield HC Pathway], Annual Enrollment Report, 2016-17 Data, Table 6C
@ imho, there's a concern that making IHS the northern HCC pathway would hurt the viability of the IB program (if lots of AP added), or would force students into IB when it's not a good fit (and is more time consuming, more expensive, potentially worth fewer college credits, etc.). There's also concern that it would mean very large Lincoln boundaries, and I've heard some concern from IHS families re: having such a large cohort of HC (since there's already some us vs them talk re: HC...but maybe that's unavoidable anywhere).
What would make the most sense of all is to make Lincoln an HCC pathway. The boundaries could be smaller, meaning fewer Ballard and Roosevelt students would be disrupted (reassigned). It would help fill Lincoln, and would provide an energetic and involved parent base to help get things rolling. Lincoln could be AP-heavy, preserving IHS as the IB option. It's hard to believe the district would rather disrupt so many more students than it needs to. (And AP options can be added to any school that has demand, whether it "gets" an HC cohort or not. The district can even require that all schools provide a minimum level, realizing that some might not be full initially--but hopefully that would change over time.
lhs is not ihs. so yes i said lincoln and not ingraham. and i agree with you lincoln is the only one suited for a GHS split.
Tonight the board asked to see maps for two scenarios at next week’s work session:
Option One:
In fall 2019, HCC students entering the 9th grade are assigned to Lincoln, Garfield or West Seattle with the IBX option continuing at Ingraham. Lincoln would open with 9th grade HCC and general education students and 10th grade gen ed students. In fall 2021, HCC students entering the 9th grade would be assigned to their attendance area schools.
Option Two: Pathways at Lincoln, Garfield and West Seattle continue indefinitely.
Fairmount Parent
Fairmount parent - Thanks for the info. Did you attend the meeting? What was your take on the reasoning behind the information request?
Ruthie
Oh Option Two: you mean what the HCC AC suggested. Too bad Nyland doesn't read his emails.
Did someone actually read my message above?!!! Holy cow! Great news there has been some solid and thoughtful conversations since the last crazy board meeting. Yeah! Still curious where QA/Mag will land.
Fix AL
Ruthie,
I watched the meeting online. You should be able to find it on the district YouTube channel tomorrow am.
As for reasoning, it sounded to me like they acknowledge that pressure on Garfield must be relieved and that not all neighborhood schools are able to provide HC services. I think the many North Ballard and Magnolia families testifying that they want to keep their kids at Ballard caused some board members to rethink sending a couple hundred HCC students to Ballard.
Fairmount Parent
What on earthen makes them think that two years after opening Lincoln all high schools would be ready to equitably serve HC students if they disbanded the pathways at that point?
If they decide they really want to go that route, I hope that the Board has enough sense to put some caveats in place, making it dependent upon achieving x, y and z (incl.. strong, measurable metrics on advanced classes for all schools) by fall 2020 at the latest so that there's time prior to open houses and enrollment for 2021. That would give them two full school years to get everything in place and demonstrate readiness for such a change the following year.
Tall order
Staff has been called on their false promise wand and Wyeth, Kari and the rest of the Oz crew are running for cover. Oh yeah every school will have these services and it won't cost a dime then. Now compared to LHS, GHS and WSH it will cost 5 million more dollars based on their math last month. Leslie Harris doesn't play false promises.
cha-ching
On the SSS blog Melissa's account was different. No option being considered that does not send them back to neighborhood schools.
"the Board has picked two scenarios for HC students.
1) West Seattle HS, Garfield HS and Lincoln will be the pathways (with Ingraham an option) as an interim until 2021 when ALL high schools will be required to serve HC students in their population.
2) Amendment 2 from Student Assignment plan will be created in a resolution form to be presented to the Operations Committee today. Meaning, leave pathways in place as they are now until 2021 when ALL high schools will be required to serve HC students in their population.
The Board requested maps from the district in order to see what that would look like with boundaries and hopes to see that by Friday's High School Boundaries Task Force meeting.
tired
She is wrong on #2.
I have an 8th grade hçc boy and I do NOT want to send him to Garfield next year. His AA school right now is Roosevelt. So I send him there next fall. What happens in 2019? Right now new AA school is Lincoln. Will they really move him there even though it will only have 9th HCC?
Mom o 2
You want him to go to GHS HCC? It will be either or I am afraid as it sounds as if RHS is taken off the table (unless they grandfather all rising 8th graders).
@Unknown - many different scenarios are still possible until the actual plan is decided on and we see the final language. (Note: I'll have a thread pre-open enrollment when there are actual policies in place. If we're lucky this should be at the end of the month.)
Mom o 2, in your position I would consider sending him to Garfield. A lot may change, so keep an eye on it, but I have serious doubts that Lincoln will actually open with classes for accelerated 10th graders. The language around what being on a pathway or not means vis a vis the HC designation means has been interpreted many different ways, and I wouldn't count on any one interpretation. Garfield has daytime tours coming up.
momof8th
@Mom o 2, I wouldn't make any decisions until the board has voted on plans, even if it means waiting until the last day of choice enrollment (Feb 16?). A lot can change between now and then. Go on any tours you can.
Here's an idea. Why not do a better job identifying and recruiting younger kids on the south side into HCC? Then maybe by 2021, there will be full HC classes in ALL schools, and the issue of "segregated" programs won't be such a problem.
Increase access, like the Seattle Times reported this Walla Walla school did to get more kids into AP consistently and more kids from underrepresented groups. https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/walla-walla-earns-national-honors-for-connecting-more-kids-to-advanced-learning/
HC pathways are just one piece of the equity puzzle.
And are you directing that at parents who have no saying or to the administration that does? I watch the board clap their hands when they're called overlords to segregation. tand yet they do nothing to ask them where he sees all the segregation where is the segregation in the city I know it's not coming from the parents who nearly want a way to educate their confounding and bright students.
@mom o 2- I would send to Garfield if you are in a change area to Lincoln as your child would be moved from RHS to Lincoln in 2019, a school projected to open without being able to serve 10th grade HC. If your area remains RHS, you can obviously send to RHS.
Although we heard current 8th graders will be grandfathered at Garfield, it could change. It is not written in policy. They could also decide prior to 2019 to move north end Garfield HC 10th to Lincoln in a geosplit. But at least your child would move with the other Garfield kids and the other scenario is worse.
@mom of 2, hold tight. We have the same questions, but from the NW Ballard side, where the commute to Garfield is out of the question (unless it's only for one year.) Until the district hammers out the details, you/we can't make a decision. You could enroll at Garfield and maybe be grandfathered there (but maybe be moved to Lincoln.) You could enroll at Roosevelt, and have to move to Lincoln for 10th, but if they do grandfather at Garfield, Lincoln will probably not have enough advanced courses for HCC (that first year.) It is also possible that your child could stay at Roosevelt, if they interpret enrolling there as a choice option (in lieu of the pathway to Garfield), but that loophole has been debated on this blog. There are far too many ifs to make a decision now.
@Juicygoofy- I asked enrollment directly about the loophole and choosing your neighborhood school (opting out of pathway school of Garfield) was told is not considered same as a "choice" option. Therefore theoretically under current system those few HC 10th grade kids in neighborhood change areas from BHS/RHS to Lincoln can be moved to Lincoln in 2019.
No student should be moved to a Lincoln if it opens without enough peer students or proper curriculum to serve them. Some 8th grade parents will make choices based upon knowing their area will change. For others they will not be aware. There is a short timeline prior to open enrollment. I fear for the most vulnerable students whose parents are not following these changes closely and or do not understand the impacts.
Concerned
P.S The safer route in my opinion is to choose Garfield as they are stating they will grandfather at Garfield. If they do decide to geosplit north end 10th HC to Lincoln they would enter Lincoln in a larger group.
Concerned
Let's suppose Garfield is geosplit, with Lincoln being a new north end pathway. Would 9th grade HC students enrolled at either Roosevelt or Ballard be able to join the cohort in 10th (I'm not seeing that happening, but I'm curious if rules will change)? Traditionally, when switching after 9th, choice is limited to space available (now defined almost arbitrarily) and the cohort pathway to Garfield is guaranteed only for current HC 8th graders.
instead of talking about 8th graders now being grandfathered the should be talking about optional pathway at LHS for 2019 10th graders and staff from GHS to meet that demand.
this is just a secondary split like WMS and hims have already have done. I am sure that will fill LHS much faster than a static roll up. choice solves a lot of problems.
imho
@concerned.
About the loophole, I do agree with you. It's unlikely that an HC student choosing a neighborhood school would be considered a choice option that could trigger grandfathering. However, here is a cut and pasted email from Jesse Wyeth dated November 22, attempting to answer a question for me (albeit, back when Ballard and Roosevelt were being considered for HC pathways):
"The HC pathways for high school students will not start until 2019-20. The proposal is for current 7th and 8th grade students who are HC and are assigned to either Garfield or Ingraham would be grandfathered to stay at those schools. Ballard and Roosevelt would not be HC pathway schools until the 2019-20 school year, so if your student was given a choice assignment during the Open Enrollment period to attend either school then they would be able to stay to the highest grade."
But nothing is certain until/unless a transition plan is approved. I would not be surprised if they made a terminology distinction between standard "choice" assignment and non-HC "choice" assignment, though it seems to me that would be unfair/inequitable.
Thanks Juicygoofy. It seems like SPS is giving contradictory information. Jesse versus Enrollment staff. Just for the heck of it you should send that email to enrollment as your understanding and see what they state to you.
In addition, can they decide on a 10th grade HC program geosplit from Garfield prior to 2019 but after open enrollment? A geosplit would better ensure adequate HC 10th.
@Imho- But SPS has said plan is Lincoln not to open prepared to serve 10th grade HC only planning for 9th grade HC in either of the two new plans being explored. So I assume budget forecasts etc are being developed without this consideration.
bhs and rhs are off the table for hcc.
How can you serve 9th grade HC only? A handful of 9th graders take either Precalculus or AP Calc. Not a big deal if they are in a large school with multiple sections of upper level math. They can't just go to Running Start.
Make sure it isn't a handful. And/or bite the bullet. We did it for IBx.
I believe the district only has an obligation to provide a continued pathway for something it enabled in the first place. The highest Math class any 9th grader coming from a HC Middle School could require based on classes they were offered there is precalc and that only occurs for the 6th graders who start in Algebra I.
So if Lincoln became the pathway, I wouldn't expect accommodation for 9th grade AP Calc but I would expect Lincoln to offer precalc (and alg II for that matter) the first year whatever the section size happens to be even if its below normal. This is basically, what's happened in each of the new middle schools in similar situations with Alg II.
I'd file this under another detail to look into, if this scenario becomes a reality.
They should plan to geosplit 10th grade HC from Garfield to Lincoln and send Garfield teachers. I have no idea why they would grandfather only HC at Garfield and no 10th graders from BHS & RHS. If you can open Lincoln to serve general ed & spectrum 10th graders, you can open to serve HC 10th graders. Then the 10th graders would move from Garfield to Lincoln a school with room in 2019. In addition, allow 10th graders from BHS & RHS to opt into Lincoln in 2019. Anyone else think this makes sense? Why would they plan to open with only 9th grade HC if Garfield is so overcrowded?
Um, because there has never been an HC pathway option at BHS or RHS? Come on, get real. If you choose your attendance area high school for your HC student, then you've already opted out of any "cohort", end of discussion. At high school there is no HC-specific anything so there is no point in grandfathering those kids back into, what exactly?
It makes zero sense for Garfield to relinquish teachers to any new high school, especially one opening with only 9th and 10th grades.
Don't 9th grade HC students take most of the same classes as GE 9th graders, aside from science? 9th grade HC students are also more likely to need advanced math classes, but since math isn't part of HCC there are likely some GE students who need similarly high classes (as high as pre-calc in 9th). If HC students are supposedly 2 years ahead in science (is that true?), then having 10th graders there with 9th grade HC students doesn't really solve the problem.
Aren't the problems are pretty similar whether they start with HC 9th only or do HC 9th and 10th like GE? No matter how you slice it, there will be a small number of kids who need more advanced options than are typical, and they're simply going to need to figure out how to provide them since 9th and 10th graders are not eligible for Running Start (and that shouldn't be the solution anyway).
My only reasoning for why they might be considering grandfathering at Garfield, is that many/most of the 8th graders have already experienced splits and moves, which are not helpful to a comprehensive education. (Lowell/LIncoln, HIMS/JAMS, HIMS/REMS, not to mention original moves from neighborhood elementary.) To ask for another move in 10th grade would be incredibly unfair.
@5:19 anonymous you said "Um, because there has never been an HC pathway option at BHS or RHS? Come on, get real. If you choose your attendance area high school for your HC student, then you've already opted out of any "cohort", end of discussion. "
Um...because SPS has a responsibility to provide students with an HC designation no matter where they land appropriate coursework as part of their basic education. Um..otherwise they can likely be sued.
Get real...at BHS & RHS HC kids are entering those schools with the knowledge the schools can serve them & principals stating they can serve them as they have older students taking the same classes. If they pull these kids in away from schools that have curriculum, their responsibility does not end.
And they also will need to plan to provide appropriate sequential coursework for general ed, special ed and spectrum kids who are geosplit into Lincoln as 9th and 10th.
@Juicygoofy- Some of the kids from BHS & RHS getting split into Lincoln also will have experienced splits.
I don't believe that SPS has a responsibility to serve HC students wherever they enroll. Or, more accurately, SPS doesn't believe that. That is one of the points of the cohort -- consolidating students in need of advanced classes.
If a family picks a non-pathway school for their student, they are not assuming that the school will change to accommodate their student, but that the student's best interests align with that school.
Because the non-pathway comprehensive high schools are not identical -- and Lincoln is a big question mark in terms of offerings and rigor -- parents are worried that their original non-pathway assignment will no longer be an option for them.
This is why I am supported putting HCC in Ballard and Roosevelt. But that's seemingly off the table. Consolidation at Lincoln is the next best idea. I think it will disrupt fewer students in the north end, and provide pathway HCC with stability and coursework. I'm disappointed with the reports of the principal being against HCC, but hoping that those were exaggerations. If not... Well, didn't the HIMS principal leave when HCC was moved there?
Krab
The public planning meeting for Lincoln had a project-based, anti-AP focus. Taking a comment from another thread, it had a "let's reinvent high school" vibe, and it would not be a stretch to consider it anti-HCC.
So if they officially designate Lincoln as an HCC pathway, that project-based, anti-AP (and potentially anti-HCC) focus is, quite simply, going to need to change.
There would be an official designation that, whether the principal wants it or not, HC students are coming en masse, and that the district recognizes its responsibility to serve them--with services beyond what might be available in the typical high school, since the district has acknowledged that what's available in the typical high school isn't sufficient at this time.
Perhaps most importantly, such a decision would finally mean clarity as to who is going where, and HCC parents and students can start to strongly advocate for what's needed. HC students who will be attending Lincoln can make it clear what their current courses are, and what they will need on the sequence in 2019/20 and beyond. Non-HC students/families should to the same. Parents should demand that Lincoln planning meetings be held ASAP after the boundary/assignment decisions so that they can finally engage with the principal and district around ensuring the state-mandated continuum of services is available. They will need to make sure the principal, and SPS, knows exactly what that means in terms of courses for these students.
It would also be helpful for SPS to get that info from school counselors at the high schools from which these kids are being reassigned (for 9th graders moving for 10th), and from the middle schools of those assigned to Lincoln for 9th. SPS should do this ASAP, once the boundaries and assignment details are finalized, so that the school can start to plan and mitigation funding needs will be clearer.
all types
I disagree. You almost need a ph.d to follow the roller coaster of what is going on right now and understand what options might be for your 8th grade child. Everything is uncertain. Grandfathering...of who? Where? etc.
There needs to be clear communication. Unless SPS is suddenly able to reach out effectively and personally prior to the short timeline of open enrollment to each and every affected student after decisions are made, there WILL be current 8th HC families choosing BHS & RHS during open enrollment in neighborhood change areas in 2019. Distance may have been a factor in that choice, especially for some kids. Or they don't understand the plan exactly (currently) Lincoln will open in 2019 to serve only 9th grade HC, not 10th etc. Who knows.
I do not believe any kid should suffer the consequences of poor communication, poor planning, poor timeline, a bad/unpopular plan they are now trying to redevelop etc.
I don't believe any 10th grade kid should be pulled from a school that can serve them into a school that cannot. Period. Any kid. No excuse. Not even "well if they would have chosen to travel an hour to Garfield". Sorry, I don't agree.
There needs to be some plan for those who are vulnerable and may fall through the cracks.The most vulnerable kids are at risk in that scenario.
Not the ones whose parents are on this thread, paying close attention and following each and every new idea, new map being proposed etc. Those are not the kids I am worried about.
L
Um...because SPS has a responsibility to provide students with an HC designation no matter where they land appropriate coursework as part of their basic education. Um..otherwise they can likely be sued.
right but if you go to your current aa school and are geo split to lhs then they need to provide the few classes that are part of the track that the cohort will receive at lhs. or you could stay with the cohort at ghs. they can much cheaper with your student at lhs then the 5 pathway model, let alone the no pathway model. this is not a budgetary issue as it is a zero sum gain. just as hims, jams and all the other splits. i guess i can see the glass more than half full. i think some of you are arguing against change as it drops the level of your perceived glass. sorry your expectations were way to high for hcc at sps and you should just praise the lord that michael tolley didn't get his hcc death blow to take effect over winter break. i won't forget this hostile action against AL.
-I don't believe that SPS has a responsibility to serve HC students wherever they enroll. Or, more accurately, SPS doesn't believe that. That is one of the points of the cohort -- consolidating students in need of advanced classes.
not sure what is going on outside of the cohort but yes they do have to provide services. if that means 6th grade algebra onwards, i am not sure that is happening. but math became decoupled from hcc years ago. Anyone? it should seamless though.
-I do not believe any kid should suffer the consequences of poor communication, poor planning, poor timeline, a bad/unpopular plan they are now trying to redevelop etc.
but hcc kids do experience that almost every year in some fashion or another. two takeaways from this are mtss seems to be relegated to appropriate ash heap versus cohort social support and pathways-for-all is being taking down as just a stupid idea.
-I don't believe any 10th grade kid should be pulled from a school that can serve them into a school that cannot. Period. Any kid. No excuse. Not even "well if they would have chosen to travel an hour to Garfield". Sorry, I don't agree.
they will have to have the classes for you if they go to lhs from bhs or rhs. that is why i think the district should make a 2019 10th grader optional hcc pathway. let choice fill the seats. much better than forced placement for hundreds of kids.
finally, flushing out that principals can't just dictate the school is huge and is really shines a positive light on future ignored policies.
no caps
@no caps. "they will have to have the classes for you if they go to lhs from bhs or rhs."
Yes, but right now the district is stating they plan to move (new maps show estimate) 10th grade HC kids enrolled in BHS & RHS into LHS, but yet simultaneously are stating LHS in the newest plan being explored (who can keep up) would open only with classes to serve 9th grade HC.
So some kids (10th grade HC in this case) repeat classes? High school is very important. None of the kids being pulled into Lincoln should be forced into repeating courses. They will need to figure it out. If no geosplit, maybe they allow these kids to opt into Garfield or stay at their neighborhood school where they will take classes with the older kids.
One issue with an opt in for 10th at LHS is ensuring enough kids for various classes. Also, 10th graders from BHS & RHS have no choice to opt in, they are getting pulled in. I think a north end geosplit for one grade (with Garfield teachers) may make more sense from Garfield, especially if they are serious about relieving the overcrowding issue.
K
New maps have been posted. F version 4.2 and F version 6
https://www.seattleschools.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=30514191
Posting Eric B's comments from the SSS blog as will be of big interest here.
"In regards to the boundaries in F4.2 and F6, staff have received the following comments at the HSBTF meeting:
F6 overloads Lincoln in both the decentralized and Garfield-Lincoln-West Seattle-Ingraham option (GLWI) HC models. The Lincoln area will need to get smaller, especially because Lincoln can't add portables.
F4.2 has a number of swaps between Ingraham and Hale so that the new boundaries follow middle school boundaries. It would be far less disruptive to not do those swaps (or the small carve-outs from Roosevelt). If Hale needs enrollment relief, part of the pink area on the change areas map could be moved from Hale to Ingraham.
F4.2 works surprisingly well for both the decentralized and GLWI models. I didn't it was possible to do both, so a good job to Ashley's team.
Hale should be kept up over 1200 students, which is the agreed threshold for a comprehensive high school.
One other notable thing: staff said that they were considering lifting the cap on Ingraham HC enrollment entirely to try to offload students from Ballard, Roosevelt, and Garfield. After the Ingraham addition opens, the limit may be put back at 120 students/year.
@ K, can you give examples of what classes you think these 10th grade HC student at Ballard would need to repeat? It might not be as dire as you think.
It wouldn't be LA or SS, since those are all by grade level everywhere. HC students taking pre-calc in 9th would need Calc in 10th, but they are likely already going to have to offer that for any GE students on the same math schedule (since math isn't part of HCC).
That leaves science. Did HC students opting for RHS and BHS get to skip the usual 9th grade Bio? If so, doesn't that just put them one year ahead in terms of the usual high school science pathway? As 10th graders, what would they expect to take--my assumption is that they would typically have a few different options. Wouldn't 10th graders at Lincoln ALSO be expected to have a range of options, or are you worried that ALL 10th graders would have to take Biology? I don't know if that's the case at any SPS high school, so wouldn't expect it at LHS, either.
all types
9th grade is typically physical science, fyi. 10th grade is biology. Then 11th, chemistry, 12th physics.
NJP
@all types,
According to Ballard's course Catalog, the progression for 10 grade HC students would be World Literature Honors, AP World History, Pre-Calculus A/B Honors, Physics and Spanish/French/Japanese Levels 4 or AP. We have no idea what of this will be available, if any, at Lincoln in 2019/20.
As with so many other things, the science pathway is not the same at every school.
At Ballard and Garfield a 9th grade student could take Physical Science, Biology or Chemistry, depending on courses taken in the 8th grade.
Nathan Hale and Roosevelt require all students to take Physical Science in the 9th grade.
This is what inequitable access to advanced learning looks like.
Fairmount Parent
No, at Roosevelt you can take other classes. Incoming 9th grade hc students take chemistry. But Franklin has a similar academy model to Hale, and I think requires all 9th graders to take physical science.
NJP
@ juicygoofy,
Are you saying Ballard's course catalog lists a progression that is specific to HC students? Or is it a recommended schedule for all students seeking a selective college prep courseload, whether id'd as HC or not? Most of those classes are not HC-specific, and other 10th graders would need them as well.
You're right that we have no idea which will be available at Lincoln in 2019/20, but that's not really an issue specific to students who opted out of HCC.
all types
I know a HC 9th grader who had the flexibility to take physics in 9th grade at Roosevelt. This student is sitting in class with a bunch of 11th and 12th graderscwho don’t care about the class and this student is really into the subject. So, I guess RHS is pretty flexible assuming you don’t care about a cohort or being in class with same age peers, which was never a big dal to me.
Dig deeper
@all types.
The courses I listed were not HC specific. They were the courses offered at Ballard that I expect 10th grade HC students would enroll in. The science, math and language classes would probably (mostly) be with older grade students.
If Lincoln opens with 9-10 GE and 9 HCC, would it be sufficient to offer these three? Are there kids who could not be served that first year if the options were:
-physical science
-biology
-chemistry
Are there middle school GE/Specrum kids who were placed in HCC science classes in middle school? If so, those 10th graders would probably be done with Chemistry and need Physics. If Physics were added to that earlier list, would that work for all? Are there many 9th graders at non-HCC schools taking chemistry in 9th? Are there many HC students currently at Ballard and Roosevelt who would need something beyond physics in 10th grade?
It feels like our best bet is to lay out exactly what would be needed in order to serve each grade and type there, then push hard for those.
All types
@all types- Not at BHS. At Lincoln. Lincoln (current plan) is stated that they will not open to serve 10th grade HC, but will open to serve 9th grade HC. So any HC pulled into Lincoln from BHS & RHS may have issues if no older kids to take classes (ex science).
K
@all types- If district is stating commitment and plan to open to provide service for only HC 9th, but not HC 10th, but yet pulls in some kids who are designated HC 10th, there may be issues. They are stating they will not provide curriculum for them. The most vulnerable students are at risk in this case, not the ones paying enough attention to have made alternate plans in 2018. Juicygoofy also makes excellent points about other courses available for HC at BHS that will likely not be available at LHS for 10th unless a plan is created. There will be no older kids and certainly not enough peers without planning.
K
So many moving parts - they are talking about completely changing the 9th/10th grade science sequence. So for Lincoln, 9th and 10th grade could potentially be something other than the Physical Science>Biology pathway. You'd also have 9th graders who may have completed PhysSci/Bio and need Chemistry, as well as 10th HC students who started at BHS and RHS with Chemistry and would be in the equivalent of 4th year science - a time when students can typically choose what's next, whether is it be AP Bio, AP Physics, AP Chemistry or whatever is offered to upperclassmen, but there won't be any upperclassmen...
They really shouldn't start a roll-up HC program at Lincoln until 2020, when there will be 11th graders to share classes with 9th grade HC kids.
I suggest they make Ingraham a guaranteed option for North End HC students in the meanwhile. (120 will not be sufficient.)
@juicygoofy I think they would need to utilize the space prior. Eric B posted in the SSS blog that at the last HSTF meeting, staff is considering lifting the Ingraham enrollment cap for next year only.
Ingraham is really great academically in my opinion, super hard. But IB also requires a higher level of organizational skills, has extra requirements (4000 word essay, community service, extra class after school) and really leaves no time for outside clubs or activities. One kid I spoke to told me they never spend less than 4 hours per night on homework. So it not right for all HC kids.
@Anon
Thank you for reviewing IB at Ingraham. I am sure it is not for everyone, which is why I suggested only it be a guaranteed "option". It does, however, feel like a good fit for the majority of HC kids. Lifting the cap on enrollment next year seems like the best way to relieve Ballard, Roosevelt and Garfield, even if just temporarily.
@juicygoofy- The schedule and time commitment poses a challenge for HC who are very serious about orchestra/band. It's also not right for some 2E kids. I get the sense IB is all or nothing as well. AP can be tailored. But I agree as an option.
On a related note, I am hearing HC at HIMS at least talking about Ballard if it remains their reference, especially Magnolia kids who live a bit far from Ingraham.
Seems like people (Eric B, Kellie LaRue) think the grandfathering at Garfield will not materialize with the newer plan if Lincoln is designated an HC school. So likelihood of north end split to Lincoln in 2019.
If you talked to families about IB, you'd probably get a range of opinions, both good and bad. While the IB program, on paper, is academically strong, it truly varies class by class and teacher by teacher in how it's delivered.
@K, what do you mean "They are stating they will not provide curriculum for them"?
Wasn't that BEFORE they were considering making Lincoln an HCC pathway? If Lincoln is a pathway, there should be overwhelming pressure for the district to provide sufficient advanced options. For HC students, the law is on their side. When it was going to be a small number of advanced 10th graders, there was that "feasibility" loophole in the law, but as a pathway site, SPS would have a lot more trouble making that case--and a lot more parents willing to fight them, too.
I still think it's important to do the district's homework for them, laying out a clear matrix of what core classes would be needed for each grade level in order to serve GE and HC and former HCC and Spectrum students. A cheat sheet of sorts re: what they need to plan for depending on which grades/students open the school. It would help SPS see what they may have missed since their planning has all been done under a completely different set of assumptions, and as a bonus it would be a good reference for parents in their advocacy. Maybe a parent can create and share a spreadsheet that starts to lay this out, allowing others to edit as needed? A Lincoln HS curriculum planning wiki of sorts?
All types
To bring the conversation back to pathway vs. no pathway...
I think any successful argument needs to address equity concerns. If this is seen as a spoiled white kid problem, then it will get nowhere.
My first thought was that equity is the strongest argument for pathways. How are they going to serve the smaller HC-identified population on the south end, if they don't have a critical mass to develop programs to support them? In a decentralized plan the rich kids at Roosevelt and Ballard will do okay, but HC students in schools with only a few will suffer. Trying to make all schools be all things to all people is just not going to work, especially in a funding-challenged environment.
However, I think equity is also the reason that people argue against pathways. "What? You're going to take the highest achievers out of the poorest schools, and the remaining students will have to be satisfied with a second-class education?" I don't believe that argument is necessarily valid, but it has a gut-level emotional appeal. Parents in those schools are rightfully suspicious of having advanced learning options taken away from them... you can see in the thoughtexchange results broken out by region that "Equal Access" is the #1 concern of South East residents: http://seattleschools.thoughtexchange.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/advanced-learning-opportunities-region.pdf
How does one effectively counter that argument? I feel like the only real way to address it is a wonky analysis of dollars and cents and class schedules, which doesn't seem like is happening, and isn't politically compelling.
My gut-appealing-but-probably-infeasible solution is to tackle the concerns head-on by making Rainier Beach an HC pathway in the south end. It seems perfect because it's so far under capacity, but (1) geographically it's all the way in the corner of Seattle, and (2) I wouldn't want to speak for the RB community without consulting them and considering potential disruption to their IB program.
The other piece of the equity puzzle is HC identification. Can the economy of scale of pathways save money that could be spent on universal testing and extra outreach to underserved communities?
Whoops - I meant to put my name on my equity comment above.
"Evan 5th grade dad"
The argument about ending pathways to increase equity has two sides. On the one hand, sending more HCC students back to their neighborhood high schools could increase the critical mass required to offer advanced courses. And this will benefit not just the dual domain HCC students, but the single domain advanced students that don't have an HCC designation as well as students with the "advanced learner" designation. These non HCC students may now have access to more advanced classes. Is a very valid argument.
On the other hand, the HCC students from schools without a large HCC cohort will in all likelihood suffer. Its very likely those high schools with few HCC students will not have the same academic offerings as those with many HCC students.
The district is going to come back with a "plan" for offering advanced courses at all high schools. And the plan will look good. Just like MTS (multi-tiered system of support) looks good. But the likelihood is that at a school like Roosevelt with many HCC students, there might be a separate English or History class, whereas at a school like Hale or Franklin, there might be a single English or History class which students can take as "honors" by writing an extra paper etc. Is the district really going to offer an advanced class for 10 students at a low attendance HCC school when the non advanced classes have 30+ students? And the school is over capacity? And the district has a limited budget?
Geary (Roosevelt) and Burke (Lincoln) both seem to favor an end to pathways, and Roosevelt and Lincoln will have enough HCC students and advanced courses, that they don't need pathways. Ballard (Mack) also has enough HCC students that it won't need a pathway, as is likely the case for West Seattle (Harris). That's four votes in the name of equity that that also happen to be quite self-serving for their own districts.
what you said:
Geary (Roosevelt) and Burke (Lincoln) both seem to favor an end to pathways, and Roosevelt and Lincoln will have enough HCC students and advanced courses, that they don't need pathways. Ballard (Mack) also has enough HCC students that it won't need a pathway, as is likely the case for West Seattle (Harris). That's four votes in the name of equity that that also happen to be quite self-serving for their own districts
where you are wrong:
"Geary (Roosevelt)" agreed she is self serving. you don't say you are going to leave the sb less than half way through your term if you are in it for the right reasons. more below.
"Burke (Lincoln)" seems to me looking to get what is best for the district and at the same time, his area. he does trust staff way too much. armchair quarter backs saved the day and thankfully the district is moving away from the cliff.
"both seem to favor an end to pathways," no just geary as she is an open vessel of thought and there all those people showing up and hogging the mic every month so that must mean something -- although it doesn't.
"and Roosevelt and Lincoln will have enough HCC students and advanced courses (agreed) that they don't need pathways." they will if they don't want incredibly small aa zones.
"Ballard (Mack) also has enough HCC students that it won't need a pathway," correct. but mack knows hcc and having no pathways kills that program as it makes it near impossible to provide ... if that is your goal.
"as is likely the case for West Seattle (Harris)." ws is nowhere near the 90 per class that would be needed to push forward a master schedule.
"That's four votes in the name of equity that that also happen to be quite self-serving for their own districts" -- nope just one. perhaps the biggest disappointment of all board members in the last decade of watching the three ring circus: jill geary
no caps
Benjamin said: "In the last board meeting there was a vote where a majority of the board voted to dissolve the high school pathway completely. Most of the board members are on record and will vote that way again despite the current round of planning. "
I was curious about who voted how, and it looks like they actually voted 6-1 (Mack against):
https://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/School%20Board/17-18%20agendas/20180103/C01_20180103_Minutes_20171206.pdf
"Amendment 2 - [...] starting in the 2021-22
school year, students entering high school from a highly capable program or with
a highly capable designation would have a default assignment to their
neighborhood school. ([sponsored by] Directors Geary, DeWolf and Patu)"
"Director Geary moved to approve Amendment 2. Director DeWolf seconded.
Amendment 2 passed with a vote of 6-1 (Directors Burke, DeWolf, Geary, Patu,
Pinkham, and Harris voted yes; Director Mack voted no)."
A lot changed between those two meetings. I would say calmer heads prevailed.
Evan 5th grade dad,
There is no point in making Rainier Beach an HC pathway as no HC students would show up. If they wanted to attend RBHS they could do so already as the school has almost 600 empty seats. Last year there were 1,398 students in Rainier Beach’s attendance area and only 605 enrolled in RBHS. About 300 of them had requested a different school during open enrollment and were forced into RBHS to keep staffing levels there from dropping any further.
http://sps.ss8.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/Enrollment%20Planning/Reports/Annual%20Enrollment/2016-17/Section%204.pdf
Fairmount Parent
At the end of the day, HC is really addressing a small population... but the HC program means a lot to them. I wonder if there are any south end HC kids/parents who are willing to give testimony about why the guaranteed placement is important.
I think it's fine for board members to vote to dismantle pathways down the road if they really see that as a desirable goal, but I would hope they have enough sense to ensure that all the pieces for success are in place PRIOR to actually implementing the change.
BEFORE they dismantle pathways they should make sure:
-Each school has done a comprehensive analysis to see identify which advanced courses, and how many sections, would be offered with the influx of HC students
-There is an agreed up and enforceable minimum number and range of advanced classes that will be offered at each high school, at each grade level, regardless of demand
- There is mitigation money set aside to ensure that classes can be offered it not full
- There are sufficient numbers of HC students in each grade at each school to support students' social-emotional health and development
- Each high school has demonstrated its ability to provide a comprehensive slate of advanced options by making significant progress in this area over the next couple years.
- etc.
If there is supposedly so much latent demand for advanced classes now, they should provide more advanced classes sooner rather than later. It might take some mitigation funds now to get us there, but that's one of the costs of potentially making such a big change of unknown feasibility. Test it over the next couple years, see if schools can in fact ramp up in the ways needed. As a bonus, that would likely reduce opposition to this change if it looks like schools are in fact up to the task.
all types
Evan 5th grade dad - I am a south end HC middle school parent watching this situation very carefully. I've written to the entire Board, and to my Director, several times to explain why I believe it's critical to ensure that any plan to relieve overcrowding ensures that HC students in south, southeast, and west continue to have access to appropriate high school course offerings. Sending students back to neighborhood high schools that cannot or will not provide those courses (if some principals' public statements are to be taken at face value) is a step backward for equity, plain and simple.
I agree with All Types, too - I would not oppose having my student attend Franklin if there would be coursework, including AP courses, in line with what's now available at Garfield. As of now, there isn't. If the Board is bound and determined to do away with HC pathways - an expensive mistake waiting to happen, from my perspective - they must spell out the courses to be provided, and fund the additional teaching positions.
In my experience, it's useful to write to the Board, but if others can show up to the meetings, go for it.
Ruthie
...from my perspective - they must spell out the courses to be provided, and fund the additional teaching positions.
The effect will be a narrowing of advanced course options. Why? Consider:
1) They may have more students taking a handful of the same AP courses (like AP Human Geography at Roosevelt, for example, or AP Gov), but schools are unlikely to provide single section options for the more advanced coursework, such as AP Calc BC or AP Physics C (Calculus based physics, not algebra based. Do Board members even know the difference? Or is AP Physics just AP Physics to them?).
2) Even if SPS committed to funding the classes, the logistics of the master schedule may prevent a number of students from being able to take the classes they request.
3) There won't be enough students to justify some of the one off AP course offerings such as AP Econ, or more advanced computer science options.
4) With the realignment of the science sequence, it's unclear how many years of AP science will be available to students not on the HC science pathway.
5) Course scheduling is ultimately a school based decision - class offerings will be prioritized based on meeting base level, Core 24 requirements, not providing a logical sequence of advanced coursework.
6) If the district decides on a defined core of AP courses to be provided at each school, they are bound to limit options. On the chopping block may be any AP courses now being offered at Roosevelt or Garfield or Ballard that a) have only 1 section offered currently, or b) are only offered at one of the schools.
What would be incredibly useful (and maybe the district has done this analysis, but we haven't seen it - one can hope, right?) is a table indicating every single AP or IB course offered this year, by school, along with number of sections offered, plus - and this is important for comparison - the percent of students taking the each course who are HC identified. Then you can have real discussions about what courses would be considered baseline for a comprehensive high school and what additional courses are needed to provide HC level options.
2cents
I agree, 2cents. That's why we need to see it in writing. They need to do the analysis you suggested in order to figure out what's baseline and what would need to be provided everywhere. However, while identification of a core set of AP courses to be provided at each school would likely result in a smaller set of classes than are currently offered at some schools, there's not reason those schools couldn't continue to provide more. The idea is to set a minimum that raises the floor, not a ceiling that lowers on some.
If done as a floor not a ceiling, however, there will still be equity issues. The district could try to use that as a rationale for ONLY offering a reduced core set of advanced classes. However, in that case they'd have to admit that they were misleading people that there would be increased access to advanced courses under this plan--they'd have to acknowledge that they mean increased access for students at schools that don't traditionally have much demand for advanced classes, and decreased access at schools who do. As part of that, they'd have to admit that this would mean decreased access for a majority of HC-identified students, which probably wouldn't sit too well with the state. They would suddenly be fighting not only HC parents, but also parents of all sorts of high achieving, college-bound GE students who expect to be able to get a rigorous education in SPS. Ironically, lot of those same people who indicated in the survey that they want increased access to advanced learning would likely be some of those seeing the "cuts" in that scenario.
If SPS is forced to be transparent beforehand, it's hard to see how the pathway disbanding would come to pass. A much better bet would be to provide additional support so that schools that want to add advanced options can do so. If there's demand, take advantage of it!
all types
all types,
If students at Roosevelt have access to twice as many AP courses as students at West Seattle or Hale, our high schools will continue to offer inequitable access to advanced learning. The solution is not to add a few courses to each school because the solution must ensure a student’s access to dual credit courses is not determined by how many poor kids live in their neighborhood.
Fairmount Parent
@ Fairmount Patent, are you suggesting that forcing HC students into Running Start is what equity looks like?
Also, one school offering twice as much of something compared to another isn't necessarily inequitable. Unequal, yes. But not inequitable if twice as many students need/want it.
All types
When considering options, I hope they discuss the financial burden on students. The cost of Running Start and College in the High School classes can exceed that of AP/IB exams (which are already costly). It's great if they can use the dual credit, but it can be an unexpected expense for many families.
To note, there is nothing in any of the district's proposals that will ensure equal access to advanced learning across all high schools. Disbanding pathways doesn't accomplish that. Keeping pathways doesn't accomplish that. The only way to ensure that would be to provide the same set of classes across all schools...which would be inequitable, because there are students who need more than would likely be provided. In that sense, pathways are more equitable.
all types
My understanding is that the cohort is supposed to be important—if not critical—in the elementary and middle school years for gifted children, but they should be ready to “launch” by high school with integrated classes and at that point the only consideration is figuring out how to create proper scope and sequence so these students aren’t repeating classes unnecessarily. Am I wrong?
When 2cohort
When 2cohort:
You are correct: High school courses are integrated (age-wise and ability-wise). However, the "cohort" means that there are enough advanced learners clustered together at one school to have enough demand for a variety of AP classes. SPS is not going to run half-full classes, so there has to be a critical mass to fill them, with multiple sections so students can also take music, art, etc. By dividing up the advanced learners, a few at each school (the "no pathway" possibility), there simply won't be very many options of classes to take, since there won't be as much demand for them. Or really, there will be greater demand at schools like Roosevelt where more of those students live, and less demand at Rainier Beach (where I live). Calculus BC is often used as an example. There aren't a ton of students that need that class, but if you have these students cohorted together at one school, you can offer it because you can fill it.
The cohort continues to be critical for many students in high school. They don’t require self-contained classrooms but they do need access to academic peers and it would be best to purposefully group them at least in their humanities classes.
Fairmount Parent
I find the "ready to launch" comment offensive. Why are highly gifted teenagers, who may be incredibly out of sync with their typical grade-level peers, sen as not ready to launch because they are different? The high school cohort affords them a greater likelihood of being able to find people that share interests, people who can relate to some of how they experience the world--often as an outsider due to being an outlier. High school can be a pretty lonely place if you don't fit in.
Me too. Also not understanding why When 2cohort thinks they grow out of their differences by age 14.
I'm not seeing specific mentions of the recent Geary/DeWolf resolution (reincarnation of Amendment 1 to end pathways by 2021, plus revisiting high school boundaries in the spring of 2020), so just wanted to be sure everyone is aware.
The BAR and resolution can be found here--https://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/School%20Board/17-18%20agendas/20180117/I03_20180117_HC_Resolution.pdf
CORRECTION to above--reincarnation of Amendment 2 (not amendment 1) from the board meeting when they voted on the 5-pathways plan.
Benjamin time to start a thread on last night's Board meeting. I was very impressed with the public comments and very disappointed with staff's comments regarding Dewolf and Geary's proposal.
Post a Comment