I would like to hear about current experiences in the HCC program at Hamilton, also gain a sense of what the future holds for HCC at SPS. (Big question, I know).
I would like to know if/how the currently proposed new science curriculum will change the HCC science scope and sequence at the pathway middle schools, and at both HCC pathway and neighborhood high schools. DMC
I had a child who graduated from HIMS last year, so I can't speak to current experience. However they had a stellar experience, made lots of close friends, had some really excellent teachers, and participated in a really outstanding award winning music program. My child joined HC in middle school and it really was a game changer socially and academically for them.
@DMC, it’s hard to find and I don’t have the link right now, but somewhere on the district website—curriculum page? Science page? Science alignment page?—it lays out the science scope and sequence not just for GE, but also for HCC. I think it’s still a little messy as some of the earlier cross-school inconsistencies are working their way through, but it at least lays out the basic plan.
@DMC The pathway for the student would be the same whether they attend a "pathway high school" or neighborhood high school. The science sequence is also usually based upon pre-req or which course a student took previously. This is the same whether general ed or HC. Also, the HC service follows the student so their pathway is the same at the neighborhood school.
Some neighborhood schools had nearly as many HC 9th grade students enroll this past year as a pathway high school such as Ingraham. However, neighborhood school HC enrollment may drop next year with Lincoln opening or over time. There are also many more spectrum eligible students taking advanced classes at these neighborhood schools so there is a large demand for advanced classes.
@ HS mom, I don't think that's completely accurate.
If a student joins HCC in middle school, at and HCC pathway site, they take a different set of science classes in middle school--regardless of which courses they took previously. They then complete 2 of the "high school" level courses (in 7th and 8th grades). When they get to high school, they continue with the district's sequence, but are further along in it. If they decide not to attend an HCC pathway high school, and are at a HS that has limited AP science offerings, it may be possible they could run out of science options (whereas a student at a school with a lot of AP science could probably take AP science classes for 10th-12th grades, after they finish up the new sequence classes in 9th).
I'll see if I can re-locate the scope and sequence info on the SPS website. It's crazy how they bury (hide?) things...
The tabs for Grades 9, 10, and 11 lay out the new GE science course sequence. The "Alternative Pathways" tab lays out the type of classes GE 11th graders can use as substitutes for the new Physics B/Chem B class. The "HCC" tab lays out the science classes HCC students (those IN the cohort, not all HC-identified students) take in 7th-12th grades.
Of note, while HCC students are--or will be, once this is fully and consistently implemented--technically 2 years ahead in science when they start high school, since they are (will be) required to take the new Physics B/Chem B class in 9th grade but advanced GE students can skip that in favor of an AP class, the difference essentially becomes only 1 year. Former HCC students can start AP science classes in 10th grade, while others can do so in 11th.
Of course, this all depends on the degree of fidelity to which principals and registrars adhere to the "official" scope and sequence, and given SPS's site-based management and the general lack of oversight and consistency re: curricular offerings, anything is possible. But this is the plan.
Another issue, which was discussed a full year ago (see MW's 1/22/18 thread) - 10th grade students cannot access IB science at Ingraham, unless they are following an IBX pathway (which is now being largely discouraged). What advanced science options will be available for 10th grade (or 9th for that matter)?
anyone going to or following hcc mtss adoption committee? oh you might know it as altf3. kari hanson will not stop until it is adopted outright.
and what is it like working with devin bruckner and does she remind you all that she frangrantly mislead the board and spoke off topic while encouraging others to do the same? her website also spoke to sps grant. anyone know if that is more misleading facts or did that come from tolley who has called for all three task forces... to get the mtss hc program.
@DisAPP My apologies, I was not more clear I was referring to high school science classes, not middle school. Yes, they skip science in middle school. However in high school need to have taken a pre-req to take the next science class. In addition, for some science classes they may also need to have taken a math pre-req. Example, needing to be concurrently enrolled in Algebra II to take chemistry etc. This also points to the importance of science class options being available at a high school for HC students who may be only one year ahead in math etc. As you stated at some neighborhood schools and HC pathway schools they may have more science classes. BHS as one example has lots of science classes and electives due to biotech academy etc. We know many HC kids taking botany or some other science class in 9th grade at BHS, because they are only one year ahead in math. We also know HC kids who actually have doubled up on science in later grades as an elective. ex genetics alongside an AP science class etc. Some of the science classes not labeled as honors are extremely rigorous engaging and challenging.
How many AP courses on average do Garfield HCC students take by the time they gave graduated? Typically is the progression 2 in 10th, 3 in 11th and 4-5 in 12th?
I am hearing the new high school science courses are very inferior to the older math based science courses. If a high school does also not require concurrent enrollment in Algebra II in order to take Chemistry or Physics they are not teaching a math based science course.
@DissApp You said " The "HCC" tab lays out the science classes HCC students (those IN the cohort, not all HC-identified students) take in 7th-12th grades."
I think you meant to state not all HCC students but only those who have already been accelerated two years in science, due to being in the cohort through middle school. There is no cohort at the high school level, and this pathway is not only for those going to pathway schools such as Garfield. It is also the pathway for HCC students attending neighborhood schools example RHS, BHS etc.
Yes, it's the pathway HCC students take if they are in HCC in 7th grade. HCC only exists in middle (and elementary) school, so the science pathway courses start in middle school.
It's not called HCC in high school. There are HCC pathway schools and students coming from HCC, and HC-identified students not coming from HCC. Those who have been "on the HCC pathway" (i.e., came from HCC middle school) are those to whom the HCC tab applies. Sorry if I wasn't 100% clear, but that's what I meant by "in the cohort"--they were in HCC middle school, and hence, accelerated in science.
We just received our child's Advanced Learning results. Our kindergartener scored 99 on 6/7 of the CogAT sub-scores with a 91 on the 7th. However, she only scored 93rd percentile on IOWA reading and 91st on IOWA math, so she was only given Advanced Learner status, not HCC.
From what I understand, the Advanced Learner/Spectrum program is effectively dead, so I don't know if it's worth pursuing. We can try for an appeal but this year the eligibility criteria for private testing has gone up to 99.6th percentile for achievement tests. I'm assuming we would only need to appeal the achievement scores, not the IQ scores?
If we did a private test and she scored above 95th percentile in math/reading would we have any hope of a successful appeal? Has anyone raised the issue of the continually increasing threshold? Any advice where to go from here or is the only option private? Has anyone had a good experience with Spectrum?
You'd only need to retest for scores that don't meet the eligibility threshold. Given that CogAT scores met the HC threshold and achievement results were above the Spectrum/AL threshold, it would make sense to retest in time for an appeal. Worst case, your child tests again next year. The CogAT scores are considered valid for three years, so make sure you keep a printout of the results. (Did they change that as well?? It now states "tests administered in the last 12 months." Would they dismiss qualifying, district administered CogAT scores from a year prior??)
From the appeals page: There must be documented math and/or reading scores at or above the 87th percentile (for Advanced Learner eligibility) and above the 99th percentile (for Highly Capable eligibility)
Elsewhere they state "approach 99.6%" and then they state "above the 99th percentile," so it sounds like anything above 99%. Take a screenshot!
It makes no sense to up the criteria for appeals when the program is simply not geared to serve students testing at those levels. Sure wish the HCS-AC still met so parents has a place to raise issues...
As you read through the details of an appeal, you should also note that SPS has dramatically shortened the appeal timeframe. "Appeals must be received in the Advanced Learning Office within 15 school days from the decision date as posted on the Source (for current SPS students). No extensions will be made." Appointments for testing are filling or already full, so the turnaround is tight.
Why 99.6%? Approaching 3 SD? Why? And 99% for achievement? Why not 97% or 98%? The thresholds are needlessly high. As others have asked, does AL have data indicating students entering on appeal don't perform as well unless they are testing at the 99%ile level? If not, the appeal thresholds don't seem justified.
@DisAPP Yes, thanks for clarifying. The district is not very clear on much having to do with HC. Many parents have to ask in order to find out information. Some fellow parents with whom I have spoken with over the years have expressed confusion about high school pathway and cohort as one in the same.
As you are aware, at all high schools including Garfield and Ingraham they are not cohorted. This even is true now for IBX (which now alot fewer kids at Ingraham as majority are taking reg IB), as they are taking classes with older kids.
However some schools (Garfield, Ingraham but also BHS & RHS) have so many HC kids the classes they still have many HC kids they know from middle HCC in their classes.
If appeals test results meet the original thresholds (95% achievement), I'd submit them.
I'd also push back against the arbitrary appeals change. I'd argue against using two different definitions of "most highly capable." If they have decided HC program services are appropriate for those testing at the 98/95 levels, then that's who they've decided are the "most highly capable." If a student came from a private school or another district and they had qualifying scores from previously administered tests that they used in an appeal, would they be denied services unless they met the higher thresholds?
As far as "cohort," the program drops the C from HCC when students move on to high school, and they don't cohort HC students in HC only classes, but the idea is that they still have a critical mass of HC students, a cohort, when attending a pathway school such as Garfield of Ingraham. By having a critical mass of HC students, there are still academic peers in core classes and hopefully enough students to offer some of the more advanced courses.
I'm not sure how much good pushing back against the higher appeals threshold will do, but it can't hurt to try. The district has argued that students trying to enter on appeal have the "benefit" of private testing, so that's why the thresholds are higher. It's nonsense really--and they should or probably do know that--but that's their story.
In reality though, it all seems to be about optics, and anything they can do to decrease the number of "over-represented" groups in HCC is seen as a positive--even if that means denying services to children who are quite clearly the target group for HC services. By increasing their ability to pick up under-represented groups (e.g., via universal screening and high FRL schools) and decreasing the identification of over-represented groups (e.g., by making the appeals criteria absurdly high, having a tight appeals window, etc.), SPS can potentially make "progress" on the racial disparities in HC identification. Not actual progress, but it might look good to those who don't bother to really understand the issue.
If SPS were truly concerned with meeting the educational needs of HC students, they'd develop eligibility criteria, outreach strategies, testing protocols, appeals protocols, teacher education standards, and curricula that align with each other in support of HC students. That they've done none of those--and seem to have no interest in doing any--says all you need to know.
That said, HCC still CAN be a good fit for many HC-identified students. If you think yours is one of them, definitely push and shove and see if you can fight your way in. And if you do find a winning strategy, I'm sure others here would love to know.
Yeah...I know, but it needs to be challenged. I doubt the state intended prioritizing "equitable identification of low-income students" to mean intentionally restricting access or under-identifying students assumed to be non-FRL. Allowing private testing, but then restricting access to HC services despite those test results indicating a need for services seems arbitrary and capricious.
Consider OSPI suggestions "to reduce barriers to identifying low income students":
- screen all students at certain grade level(s) - look for above-grade level WaKIDS indicators - assess rapid growth over time with WaKIDS - test during school day in home school - review IEPs for students with disabilities for indicators of giftedness (twice exceptional) - inform staff of gifted indicators and solicit referrals by staff - use alternative assessments for English learners - routinely review all relevant data for any new student, include referral information in enrollment packets - reach out to families by native language speaker
What AL/SPS has stated they will or have used as strategies, all of which seem in line with OSPI suggestions:
1. Targeted universal testing of 2nd graders at all 32 Title I schools. We have adopted the Naglieri Nonverbal Aptitude Test to help ensure identification of low income and ELL students.
2. Collaboration between the Advanced Learning Office and the Rainier Scholars (RS) Program. Data sharing has resulted in significant eligibility increases among students of color.
3. Achievement-Focused Recruiting of underrepresented students. Students of color in grades 1-8 who have high achievement scores but have not been referred for Advanced Learning are sent individual invitations to participate in eligibility testing.
@Jan 8th 2:48PM "Another issue, which was discussed a full year ago (see MW's 1/22/18 thread) - 10th grade students cannot access IB science at Ingraham, unless they are following an IBX pathway (which is now being largely discouraged). What advanced science options will be available for 10th grade (or 9th for that matter)?"
Are 9th grade HC students at Ingraham currently taking the new science courses, the same pathway as general ed 9th graders?
I do know at BHS 9th grade HC can access the year long math based Chemistry or Physics courses, as long as they are ready for Algebra II. i believe its the same at Garfield and Roosevelt. 9th grade HC take those courses alongside 10th graders who are 1 year ahead in science at BHS due to biotech, & 11th graders not in biotech.
Otherwise if they are not ahead two years in math, they take other science courses ex botany etc. I think it is same at RHS and GHS.
If Ingraham does not allow HC 9th or 10th graders to access IB science courses that is a huge problem if there is no alternative, and parents need to be made aware of this limitation. I heard very few students are now doing IBX...only 1/4 or so of incoming HC? The new science courses are inferior, not good for HC kids interested in science and are not math based. It seems Ingraham regular IB is not a great fit for accelerated or gifted kids until they reach 11th grade.
It is one reason we did not choose Ingraham as we wanted access to advanced courses in 9th and 10th, and not have it be all or nothing with IBX.
Some HC students can theoretically take up to 4 AP courses next year in 10th at BHS. However we will likely start with 1-2AP alongside physics ( 2 years ahead) science. I imagine options are similar with other schools Garfield & RHS, schools with lots of HC students.
A lot of this depends on the degree of fidelity to the new science sequence. If schools are forced to adhere to it, things will be different--and the kids coming from HCC will be on a different pathway than those in GE (although by 11th grade it may be only a 1-yr difference, not 2). If schools aren't forced to adhere, you're probably looking at something similar to the status quo.
Remember, however, that the new plan takes several years to roll out. With inconsistencies in who has taken what prerequisites over the years and across schools, there has to be a lot of flexibility built into the system during these transition years. This means that just because some students are able to do x this year doesn't mean the same will be true for similar students in a year or two. It all depends on how strictly the new "plan" is implemented. If the Chem A/Physics A (GE 9th) and Biology A/B (GE 10th) classes are graduation requirements, that reduces a lot of flexibility at the school level for those first to HS years.
Please know that private testing is sometimes covered by health benefits and definitely by flexible spending accounts, particularly if you are referred due to a suspected learning disability. My child had similar scores as yours years ago, and it took us until 4th grade to diagnose her (relatively) low reading scores were related to vision. She was scoring in the 90ish percentiles, despite having double-vision. You might want to get a private test, if only to rule out similar issues.
Interesting development: The extra requirements to teach an HCC course have been eliminated for teachers. In the recent 'category verification' process the requirements for the 'Gifted Specialist' is to teach HCC or Spectrum classes for a year. This eliminates the entry requirements of AP or IB training, Alternative School education or experience etc. That was the process I went through 6 years ago to earn my category. Does anyone know if the school board changed this?
The information is no longer posted on the SPS website to the best of my ability to find it. I had to email Amy Valenti in the category verification department. We were told to submit our requests for categories and they would verify it rather than posting the requirements as was done in years past. It isn't on the HR or pages for sure. Maybe someone can find the archived pages?
@DisAPP I disagree that the appeals thresholds aren't justified. I think it's SPS's way of basically eliminating appeals without explicitly doing so. And I agree with that sentiment. If your child didn't get in, that's too bad. He/she will just have to do better next time. I get your motivation of course, what parent wouldn't want this. But every other kid had to play by the same rules, and the ones that got in, got in fair and square. Why is your kid a special snowflake? So I'm happy that SPS sets such a high bar.
Sure, the CogAT could produce some false negatives, and some children do fall into that rare case of being gifted but scoring low (though undoubtedly that's usually not the case with most parents who appeal). Still - too bad. Again, that's life. Prep them better and try again next year. Are you going to whine too if he/she doesn't get into Harvard? Honestly, I'd rather my kid be among kids that earned it rather than ones whose parents "paid" for it.
And the other things is, how does this affect other kids who qualify? I mean, spots in an HCC elementary/middle school is a finite, scarce resource, right? If a kid didn't quality through the regular process but got in through private testing, does that bump off a kid who did qualify fair and square? Have no idea whether that's the case, but I sure hope not. Does anyone have insights into this?
Sorry, but not sorry if all this comes off as mean. I'm not directing this at anyone in particular. Just stating my opinion on the appeals process. But better luck next time if your kid didn't get in (and I genuinely mean that).
Wow. Yes, it does come off as mean and spiteful. Incredibly mean.
It seems clear SPS is attempting to reduce *private testing* as part of appeals (as they can't get rid of an appeals process, that's required by the state), but to what end?
SPS testing is not somehow more valid than other testing, and SPS specifies what additional tests are acceptable, so who gives a bleep whether a student qualifies through district testing or private testing. Has there been documentation of disparate performance in students who entered on appeal vs SPS only testing? And why are the thresholds higher ONLY for HC qualification? By SPS logic, the appeals thresholds should be adjusted higher for Spectrum/AL qualification. Huh, but they're not. Because it's bogus.
Mod note: Please use an authenticated account or sign your post with a handle/alias.
As to DoseOfReality's question. There is no fixed number of HCC seats. All qualified students are admitted.
Also as a background point, most of our peer districts have a stricter appeal process that allows only basically technical issues to be brought up.
Example from Bellevue: "Please indicate the reason for appeal and provide an explanation: **Please note: illness will not be considered a valid reason for appeal Specific criteria related to the screening/testing conditions Misapplication or miscalculation of scores"
The result of this has been a growth in the cogat test/prep industry on the Eastside. Folks here haven't adjusted yet but I expect to see that increase in popularity.
In the process of looking for things I found this statement: http://www.amysummersphd.com/response-to-sps-appeals-changes/ which was an interesting read.
"SPS testing is not somehow more valid than other testing" But it's not an invalid one either, and that's what matters. They have to use some kind of process and this one is as good as any (its a good filtering process IMO). Again, what matters is that it's valid and fair. More than fair actually, since you get to retry year after year.
"Who gives a bleep whether a student qualifies through district testing or private testing" Not relevant. They have a process, a fair and good one, and everybody should have to just go through it and except the results. Wanting private testing is basically an entitled way of saying "SPS I don't like your process and I won't accept its outcome if it's not to my liking. You need to instead play by my rules and accept its outcome".
"Has there been documentation of disparate performance in students who entered on appeal vs SPS only testing?" They probably haven't measured this, but I bet if they did, they'd probably find the appeals-admitted kids score a tad lower. But again, not a relevant question along the lines of the above. There's a fair process in place and everyone should have to play by it, period.
People are hung up on the appeals criteria and I'm saying they shouldn't even allow appeals on the basis of score. I didn't know that Bellevue has already taken this approach and I'm glad to see it. Hopefully SPS will adopt the same.
Just so you don't think I'm completely mean, here's a helpful tip for the missed-by-a-few crowd. Did you know you can easily prep your kid for the test in just a couple hours? Go buy one of the prep books on Amazon and study the questions for a bit. You'll find that you can distill a couple of the hard sections down to 3 or 4 basic principles (one of which is universal for any test) your kid can follow as a framework to make the problems easy. I leave it to you as exercise to find the general patterns. But trust me, they're there. If your kid is smart and was in the ballpark, he/she will blow through it second time around with just a couple hours of this prep the day before the test.
-DoseOfReality
p.s. @Benjamin Thanks for answer about HCC slot availability. Glad to hear that's the case.
SPS has an appeals process that allows for private testing. Parents did not create the policy, they are simply following the policy, fair and square, as you would say. Having two definitions of "most highly capable" is what's not defensible. Whatever their decided thresholds, they should be consistent. Sure, students can retest the following year...at the district's expense, when they could instead be potentially receiving services and not need further district testing.
It's helpful to look at neighboring districts. Shoreline, for example, has programming for single subject qualifiers. A student can qualify as HC in math OR reading and once a student qualifies, they qualify. They need to qualify in both areas to access the cohort programs, but for single subject qualification, they get programming at their school and from what I understand can retest the following year in the subject for which they didn't qualify. They don't have to reprove their qualification in the other subject. That is unlike SPS, where a student may qualify in math/quantitative but not in reading/verbal, or vice versa, then are left with no HC services. Bellevue limits enrollment in HC program schools - is that really the direction you'd want to go?
Does anyone know what the required scores are in each of the 3 steps to get into HCC? Per my incomplete/incorrect understanding, it's:
1) 95th percentile on MAPS to quality for the cogAT screen test 2) 85th(?) percentile on the screen test to quality for the full cogAT test 3) 98th(?) percentile on the full cogAT to qualify as HC
I'm not saying parents shouldn't take avenues available to them. It's the whining about unfairness of the requirements is what I take issue with. And I agree that having two separate systems of requirements is absurd. And I've been consistent in advocating a solution to that - get rid of the appeals process, i.e. get rid of the private testing backdoor.
As for the article, yes, I've read it. And I took it with a grain of salt. It was really just a counter viewpoint, nothing more. One that's unsurprisingly, but understandably defensive of her profession. She goes on to state beliefs that she asserts are myths, yet doesn't actually present any data to back them up. For example, she claims the "It's easier to score high on an individually administered test than on a group test" is a myth. But she presents no data to the contrary. E.g. data like "a control study wherein kids took tests in both environments showed that...". Alas, no such data given. That's not to say that she couldn't be right. But don't claim something is a myth unless you have facts to back it up conclusively.
She also claims that pyschologists can't be bought. Hogwash. Just as the lending industry a decade ago was plagued with appraisers who commonly appraised homes right at the loan amount, I have no doubt that there are unscrupulous psychologists who will manipulate results to their paying clients' liking. Fear of professional miscounduct? Please. How would they get caught? Not like they'd be foolish enough to qualify a hopelessly unqualified kid as gifted. I'm more apt to believe that some are OK with vouching for, say a 93-percenter, knowing full well that the kid isn't going to fail at an HCC program because it's hardly a true program for the gifted. They'd never get caught, so what's the harm in helping a near-borderline kid get admitted for parents that paid good money? I'll take her articles seriously when she presents real data.
SPS has the data on test scores of private-tested versus SPS-tested HCC kids on tests taken during each school year. Years of data. It's a pity we're not privy to it to end the debate. But I digress. Just disallow appeals outside of technical grounds.
Regarding what Shoreline does, I do like that they let kids qualify into the math and reading areas independently. It's sensible and fair. As for whether I want enrollment to be limited - I don't want it expanded or contracted. I want whatever number of kids quality through one process that's valid, fair, and one that sets a high bar.
She did explain why "easier to score high on individually administered test" is a myth. They are both standardized, norm-referenced tests. Your score is based on how you compare to other people (in the norming sample) who took the same test in roughly the same conditions. So whatever advantages you get from taking an individually-administered test, everyone who you are compared to also gets those advantages.
Say that both tests used exactly the same questions (which they don't). You might answer more questions correctly on the individually-administered tests, but your *score* wouldn't be higher because everyone else would also answer more questions correctly, and your score is based on how you compare to everyone else.
Of course, there are some kids whose standard scores on group tests might be expected to be lower than their standard scores on an individually-administered test, such as kids with disorders like ADHD or ASD, kids with anxiety, etc. They are affected more by the group testing conditions than typical kids. That is one argument for allowing appeals: that the group testing disadvantages 2e kids unfairly. It would be nice if the kids' 504s/IEPs included one-on-one testing as a matter of course, but apparently they don't. I don't have data that 2e kids score lower on group tests (although I do have plenty of anecdotal evidence!). Maybe someone else does.
I have the feeling (but don't have data) that the CogAT results are less reliable than individually-administered tests because I think that it's more likely for kids to flub it not based on cognitive abilities. So kids who do great in group testing environments would get higher scores than their actual cognitive abilities would warrant because some of their more cognitively-able peers (i.e. who they are being compared to) tanked it.
@George Oh I get the explanation of why it *could* be a myth. But can we agree that until she puts data on it, it's as much conjecture as the other side of the argument?
In any case, you are contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you're arguing it's a myth because while kids could get a higher *number* of questions right in an individual test, their relative scores should not change since as you point out, other kids will have the same advantages. Then on the other hand, you offer anecdotal evidence that kids do score higher in individual testing than with group testing. Granted that's in the context of ADHD/ASD kids. But again, as you said, since these scores are always relative (percentiles), they should be produce the same result. And so if a kid gets a higher relative score with individual testing than with group testing, then by definition, it means it's easier to get a higher score with it than the other. And if they don't produce different scores, then why bother? But again, where's the data (I'm not asking you specifically)?
What you're really arguing is that the cogAT is flawed. I'm not going to get into that debate, except only to say that while I don't think it's perfect (what is?), it's a good one and is probably the best that SPS can do at scale. And it's fair, expecially with the unlimited retries. Although if a kid can't pass after 1st, 2nd, 3rd try, etc., then I'd say the parents have bigger problems to solve if group anxiety is the reason behind it.
Personally I find it hard to believe that *individual* testing, where psychologist have different levels of competency, conditions of the physical environment is different, kid's varying comfort level with pyschologists, different expectations set on it by psychologists, etc., that all of that has less variability than when students are all taking the test with the same physical environment, same test, same questions, etc.. I'm not against individual testing per se, but if SPS continues to allow this backdoor, they should allow it to be administered only by a handful psychologists who they've thoroughly vetted as competent and impartial to reduce all the variability (and potential shenanigans).
Anyway, I've said my piece on this and will bow out now. Good luck on your kids' next test.
@DoR, your idea of fairness confounds me. If the true goal of testing is to identify students who are highly capable and thus need highly capable services, how is it fair to ONLY use a testing procedure that disproportionately impacts certain students, such as kids with disorders like ADHD or ASD, anxiety, etc., who are affected more by the group testing conditions than typical kids? You may not like 2e kids, but they do exist--and IMHO it's unfair (and unethical) to put them at a disadvantage because the district decided to prefer testing protocols that work just fine for neurotypical kids. (Or, to put it in your terms, why do neurotypical kids get to the be special snowflakes around whom the testing protocol is designed?)
At first I thought you were being sarcastic when you said you think the appeals thresholds are justified because "if your child didn't get in, that's too bad. He/she will just have to do better next time." Then I sadly realized you were serious. This idea that "every other kid had to play be the same rules" and that "the ones that got in, got in fair and square" is based on an incorrect assumption that equal means equitable and fair. Equity and fairness are based on the idea that sometimes, in the interest of leveling the playing field--AKA fairness--we do things a little differently for some people. Like those with learning disabilities or special needs.
But, your dismissiveness of 2e students tells me all I need to know. As you said, "the CogAT could produce some false negatives, and some children do fall into that rare case of being gifted but scoring low (though undoubtedly that's usually not the case with most parents who appeal). Still - too bad." The unkindness--and lack of concern for children's welfare--behind that remark is stunning, but thanks for your honesty. And your advice: "that's life. Prep them better and try again next year." Really? You just acknowledged that some of these kids may be 2e, so test prep probably isn't the solution. (I also suspect the number of 2e students is higher than you think.)
As to this idea that kids getting in on appeal would somehow steal spots from other kids who you for some reason assume are more qualified, as others as pointe out already, there are not a fixed number of seats. Kids who get in on appeal also seem to do as well as those who qualify via group testing (the district has previously presented data on state test scores that show HCC students, overall, do very well--if there were a bunch of cheaters and fakes in the program, that would drag the results down). Soooo....those who get in on appeals do well (i.e., they are qualified), and they don't prevent anyone else from getting in. So the problem is what?
optics da. it is all optics. that is why you have honors for all south of the ship canal and ibx north.
keep in mind this was all stephen driven by devin bruckner's repeated testimony to the board. the objective is to get higher percentages of students black/hispanic even if that is achieved by qualifying less white and asian kids.
Legally, the district’s definition of highly capable must:
1. Align to state law, WAC 392-170-035: "highly capable students are students who perform or show potential for performing at significantly advanced academic levels when compared with others of their age, experiences, or environments. Outstanding abilities are seen within students' general intellectual aptitudes, specific academic abilities, and/or creative productivities within a specific domain. These students are present not only in the general populace, but are present within all protected classes according to chapters 28A.640 and 28A.642 RCW."
and
2. Clarify who meets the criteria for most highly capable district-wide. WAC 392-170-036 Definition—Learning characteristics. As used in this chapter, the term learning characteristics means that students who are highly capable may possess, but are not limited to, these learning characteristics: (1) Capacity to learn with unusual depth of understanding, to retain what has been learned, and to transfer learning to new situations; (2) Capacity and willingness to deal with increasing levels of abstraction and complexity earlier than their chronological peers; (3) Creative ability to make unusual connections among ideas and concepts; (4) Ability to learn quickly in their area(s) of intellectual strength; and (5) Capacity for intense concentration and/or focus.
The main problem with the multiple cutoff identification model that Seattle uses is that this practice is one of the main culprits when it comes to maintaining a relatively undiverse HC population. It keeps out students who show potential for performing at significantly advanced academic levels when compared with others of their age, experiences, or environments. It also keeps out students who would qualify in a single domain. It is troubling that Thurgood Marshall's Racial Equity in HCC PTA group seemed to promote this multiple cutoff model that helps prevent racial equity in HCC.
Does anyone know the HCC pathway for kids in the Roosevelt HS boundaries? I thought it was Lincoln but SPS enrollment is telling me it’s Garfield. TIA!
Does anyone know the HCC pathway for kids in the Roosevelt HS boundaries? I thought it was Lincoln but SPS enrollment is telling me it’s Garfield. TIA!
Does anyone know the HCC pathway for kids in the Roosevelt HS boundaries? I thought it was Lincoln but SPS enrollment is telling me it’s Garfield. TIA!
SP S's established eligibility thresholds are not absolute disqualifiers; teacher and parent/guardian input are also important considerations. In order to provide equitable opportunities for all students and to uphold the intent of WAC language regarding protected classes [WAC 392-170-035], the MSC will give special consideration to and assess the impact of the following factors: cultural diversity, socio-economic status, linguistic background, and identified disability.
Someone mentioned a shorter appeals window, but the 15 working days is consistent with the latest policy (approved 8/24/16): "Appeals must be received in the Advanced Learning Office within three weeks from the date postmarked on the eligibility decision notification so that decisions can be made for enrollment purposes." Are parents now notified via email, the same day a decision is posted on the Source? Seems like that would be an improvement over snail mail.
Yes, your child is not gifted and does not deserve/warrant a quality education in the eyes of Seattle Public Schools. I'm in your shoes as well and am coming to acceptance that a high CogAT score is meaningless.
What is the virtue in not being 'gifted'? That's something I'm still trying to figure out for my child.
Hi, I have a middle schooler who is special Ed and HCC designated in 8th grade right now, but taking Algebra. He is considering taking 9th and/or 10th grade science next year in high school, but would continue with next level of Math. I expect the high school will let him enroll in the science of his choice (and for the purpose this discussion, let's assume I am correct about that). Given he wouldn't be in any "HCC" classes I assume that teachers wouldn't know he is HCC designated - or do teachers have some way of seeing that? He has experienced some anti-HCC bias from certain teachers and staff in middle school. If that HCC designation is going to "follow him around" in high school, and doesn't support his academic path anymore, I would just as soon have the designation removed. But if teachers don't see it, then it probably doesn't matter, or perhaps I am overlooking some other reason to leave it alone. Thanks for any thoughts. -Josie
@Josie At most high schools the level of math also may determine which science your student can take. If your student is one level above in math in 8th grade yet, has already taken 2 levels ahead science (Bio) they would most likely have a choice of various science (electives) at many schools, but could not take Chem or Physics yet at schools offering the full year chem or physics. Students need to be at Algebra II level as those courses are math based.
The principals have access to information on HC designated kids, but I don't think the teachers would know the designation. Unless it was a science teacher teaching 11th grade science who knows they have 9th graders. They do know the grade of their students. Some schools also may have a mix of 9th, 10th & 11th in the same class due to Biotech (ex BHS) that accelerate students 1 year ahead in science.
I believe there are three reasons why SPS changed the appeals process. First, they want fewer students in HCC. Second, there is a perception that privileged white students are more likely to qualify on appeal than low-income minorities. Third, fewer appeals mean less work and historically Advanced Learning has been stretched. Given these objectives, I’m doubtful that in most cases the district will make exceptions to the criteria.
With regards to appeals, there are multiple reasons private testing can make qualification easier. First, there is no way for SPS to know how many times a student has been privately tested and taking any test multiple times generally makes it easier and increases the odds that at some point a student might pass. Second, with regards to the achievement tests, there are many options which could make it easier. For example, a parent simply might have their student tested on reading as compared to the broader language arts tested administered by the district. Third, private testing can be more forgiving. I recall the districts full COGAT battery being given one year with no lunch break; I doubt any private tester would ask a kindergarten, for example, to sit through the entire test with only bathroom and water breaks. I recall a student who once took a nap during the district’s COGAT testing, and the administrator could have cared less. The student failed the district’s test and then passed the private test.
I believe it’s easy to boost a COGAT score through test prep, but that doesn’t mean its easy to boost it to the 99th percentile through test prep. In many ways, its no different than SAT test prep; a few hours of study can improve your score and familiarize the test taker with the format, but that’s it. If you don’t believe me, then look at a sample test because it will become obvious for example that there is no way to ace the math test unless you are very good at math. Is it unfair to prepare for the COGAT or the achievement tests? Of course not. Even the COGAT author recommends taking a practice test for familiarization. The COGAT measures “learned reasoning abilities”, not innate IQ.
Overall, the districts testing procedure is not perfect, but I also don’t believe is unreasonable given its objectives. Whether or not its objectives are reasonable is a different question.
We were in your boat as well, but it was reversed. Teacher told us to have kid tested during 1st grade year. It was apparent to teacher kid was extremely gifted especially in math, told us she learned from our kid how to think about math differently. But Kid missed Cogat when tested by one point (97%) in 2nd grade.
We tested again later in 4th. Kid tested 99% Cogat & also had tested privately as we really felt needed HC and was also 99%, we were ready to appeal at that point if it had been needed.
Kid entered HC and wow what a difference in academic and social experience. Also was consistently been told by teachers one of strongest students academically in class, it was right place.
Looking back my kid was sick for many years with stomach issues and we did not know cause. I think it affected performance initially on first test in 2nd grade. These tests are not foolproof. There actually needs to be more flexibility in identification not less. I would test again as your child should qualify with those Cogat scores.
Also, Dr Herzog director of the UW Robinson's center (gifted ed) told me that SPS should not be testing kids in kindergarten, as is too inaccurate at that age. She also mentioned that the older they get the more accurate the results. It is also harder to qualify via cogat or WISC (private test) later on when kid is in 4th, 5th or 6th grade. I found that interesting. We are not affluent and not parents who even were aware of HCC when our child was in kindergarten.
Agree that testing is often not accurate in Kindergarten. But it would be terrible for many kids to not have HCC available in 1st grade. Some kids just do not do at all well in gen ed, and it's immediately obvious to everyone involved.
If testing is not valid that young according to leading researchers in gifted ed and if they are making this recommendation, it does not seem like it should be done. My child survived for years in "general ed" until testing in later on and at 99%. It was not the best fit and would have been better to have been in cohort earlier.
However, I don't think waiting a year or two to test until the test is considered more valid is a big deal. It sounds more like a best practice that should be followed to ensure validity.
In addition, it seems that very affluent families are the only ones testing in K because they are the only ones aware of HCC. The biggest surprise for us was the fact that so many kids in SPS who tested in at kindergarten also had difficulty in HCC. I was flabbergasted that we were told by teachers my kid was an outlier even in HCC. Tested later and actually was harder to test in at that age.
If the testing the district uses for HCC eligibility is not sufficiently accurate in earlier grades, they should be using other methods to determine eligibility--not just scrapping early identification. I seriously doubt Dr. Herzog was saying you can't identify giftedness in young children. There are kids in which it's pretty darn clear in preschool. Maybe we just need a modified process. (Note: the state also requires that we have a process starting with K).
You also said "the biggest surprise for us was the fact that so many kids in SPS who tested in at kindergarten also had difficulty in HCC." How many kids? I've never seen any data on this. Was this anecdotal evidence from your child's first grade HCC teacher?
"There are a handful of studies that have addressed the utility of kindergarten assessments in predicting academic achievement past the third grade (Augustyniak et al., 2004; Badian, 1988; Butler, Marsh, Sheppard, & Sheppard, 1985). In each of these studies the kindergarten screening or readiness measure was found to be positively and significantly correlated with academic achievement in the fourth, eighth, and sixth4 grades, respectively"
Dr. Herzog is not the last word in gifted ed. (Thankfully since despite working at the Robinson center she's barely in supported of gifted ed at all)
Is there any reason SPS can't require students to re-qualify for HCC services for 6th grade and beyond? That's when classes start becoming more sequential and changes in status would create more schedule complications. There are also a lot of new HCC students starting in 6th grade, so there's lots of churn. Students often end up at different middle schools than many of their elementary classmates as it is, so it also would not be that socially disruptive.
I think state law requires that once students are identified as HC they need to receive a continuum of services, but I don't recall seeing anything about "unidentifying" students as HC. There is mention of an exit process, but I don't think it mentions anything about testing. The OSPI info re: exits, however, mentions "student no longer qualifies" as one of the possible reasons for exit. This suggests you CAN have students requalify. It would add to the costs, of course, but it might also help with the optics and some of these "legacy" students who qualified early but maybe do not still need HCC.
The only reason I bring that up here is that I think it's essential to maintain access to HCC (or similar) services for students who are in the 98th+ percentile as early as K. Whether they are truly gifted or just advanced for their age, they need something different than their fellow classmates in those early years. Whether they continue to need it in middle school is TBD.
In addition, it seems that very affluent families are the only ones testing in K because they are the only ones aware of HCC.
Can we please refrain from using anecdata to make such broad assumptions? I'd also refrain from making assumptions about a student's performance once in HCC - there is still a curve of performance and abilities within HC, and some students are 2E. Just because a student doesn't get straight A's, does not mean they don't belong in HCC. There is a process for counseling students if they seem to be struggling to keep up.
Way back when, the district used to require retesting if a student tested, qualified, but then chose not to enroll. They finally dropped that requirement, which was a good thing, as it seemed like a waste of the district's limited resources. Now students can test in elementary, then decide if they want to transition to HCC in 6th or whenever.
The primary goal should be getting students into the most appropriate learning environment, then actually providing an appropriate education. And "legacy students?" Wow. Pretty loaded term.
Who said anything about "legacy students"? I did not use that term in my post, go re-read. I also am also really confused about the hostile defensiveness about my comment that "it seems that most students testing into HCC in K seem to also come from more affluent families."
I thought most HCC parents agree there is a lack of representation and/or lack of knowledge about HCC service from lower income families?
I also have heard from a child psychologist that IQ is not as stable as many believe. It is influenced somewhat by environment. As kids grow I do believe that IQ is also impacted, same as their growth would be in other areas.
I appreciate the poster who pointed out the fact that it is unfair to judge kids who seem to be struggling academically in the HCC program. We do know a few in that position who yes are also 2E, and I apologize for my comment which was not sensitive. I want to add that I believe there are also other reasons (besides academics) that many of the kids do benefit from the cohort.
I also appreciate the poster who pointed out that Dr Herzog may represent one viewpoint in gifted ed. I have no idea actually but she did state "SPS should not be testing them in kindergarten as it is not valid" within the context of a conversation about under-representation of low income and minority students in HCC. I interpreted the statement as it was stated. It's possible a different test may be more valid.
Hi I have a kid who tested high enough for HCC on the Cogat portion but not on the achievement portion. I wonder, if she has MAP scores >95% this spring (when her school administers the test), would she then possibly be able to qualify for HCC? I e-mailed AL about this but have not received a response.
If we decide to retest her next fall, does she need to repeat the Cogat test, or would she just need to do the achievement portion to be able to get her considered for HCC? That is, would the Cogat results from this year still be valid?
Anon@10:29, your child would need to go through the full battery of tests again, but you could potentially use this year's qualifying CogAT scores if needed for an appeal. If your child meets district administered achievement thresholds next year, but for some reason not CogAT scores, the qualifying CogAT scores from this year should be valid for next year. AL would make initial decisions based on next year's scores, but this year's CogAT scores (and district administered MAP, though not for K) could serve as a backup for appeals. That said, the AL appeals info does not explicitly state that district administered CogAT scores are valid for 3 years, and only mentions scores from elsewhere:
The Appeals Committee will consider results from privately administered intelligence tests that have been completed within the last three years. Verbal Reasoning and Quantitative Reasoning scores from the ERB if done in a school setting within the previous 12 months.
The question is, would AL hold a child to the higher HC thresholds when using district administered tests as part of the appeal? The policies aren't so clear, are they?
But then AL also states this, when listing what can be included in an appeal:
Results of additional assessments. -Qualifying SPS fall or winter achievement scores in math and reading when available may be used to support an appeal. There must be documented math and/or reading scores at or above the 87th percentile (for Advanced Learner eligibility) and above the 99th percentile (for Highly Capable eligibility) -tests administered within the last 12 months
Wait, what? If a student appeals with district administered achievement tests, they must meet higher HC thresholds as well?? And which tests administered in the last 12 months? Does that just apply to achievement tests, or to CogAT as well?
"All my kids tested 99% in k and MS (for private school)." And that illustrates...? That you think IQ is stable in kindergarten for all children? And my kid missed HCC by one point (97%) when tested first time, but tested at the 99% (not even the 98!) when tested again years later same school administered Cogat test. I heard from a child psychologist that IQ is not set in stone at a young age, not Hertzog. I have also heard many stories like ours. But you are an expert? Hertzog runs the Robinson center for gifted ed, so I do think she may have at least a bit of credibility, but perhaps there is disagreement upon best practices in the field.
Why is the appeal standard so much higher than the regular testing requirements? Hidden somewhere in a board report from a couple of years ago there was this: "Racial Equity & Analysis Tool (REAT) implementation spearheaded by Maria Breuder (L4L Supt. intern) regarding social justice aspects of the [AL/HC] appeal process."
Our daughter received an eligibility decision of CAL, which we appealed (she's in 99th percentile across most of the CogAt, and 96 Math and 93 Reading on MAP). We included teacher comments, the scores, etc in the appeal packet.
We submitted the packet last Thursday, and for giggles I logged into The Source over the weekend. To my surprise in the Advanced Learning section there's already has an "appeal decision" that shows "continued advanced learning" but a future date of 1/31/2019 - I find it shocking to imagine they actually even opened the packet on Friday (and the weekend + MLK weren't work days). And it still says "if you wish to appeal this decision go read these instructions..." like it did after the initial eligibility decision was posted. I know there are no appeals of appeals.
We've gotten no email notification of an appeal decision, and in the past the district has "accidentally" sent out notifications via email that turned out to be unnecessary or wrong.
Is this just some weirdness of the source to indicate that they've received the packet and we will get a decision by the 31st? Does anyone know?
Similarly - has anyone had a successful appeal? The web site lists thresholds and rules that are so confusing they're either just mostly wrong, or the appeals process is basically just a sham now designed to meet the letter of the law, but not to really actually consider any edge cases.
So I see a few posts about kids having qualifying cogAT scores, but not having qualifying MAP scores (less than 95%). I thought a kid had to score 95% to begin with in order to take the cogAT? Can someone clarify how a kid is able to take the cogAT without qualifying MAP scores?
FWIW, as far as private testing being easier, my child actually fared worse on private testing for achievement than the IOWA tests. They took off points because my five-year-old reversed some numbers. On a multiple choice test, that wouldn't be an issue.
You may be mixing up the CogAT screener with MAP scores. For kids in grades K-2, the first step for cognitive testing is the CogAT screener, a shorter test with samples from several CogAT sections. Those who score in a certain range on the screener are then scheduled to take the full CogAT battery (all I can find on the website is a mention of "scores in the superior range" but I was under the impression that the cutoff score was 94% or 95% - not sure if that was ever official). Kids in grades 3-8 don't take the screener; they take the full CogAT to start with.
This is all a totally separate process from MAP testing (standardized testing for reading and math, administered in school for grades K-2), and as far as I know there is no requirement that kids have qualifying MAP scores in order to sit for the CogAT. And for kids in K, they may not have taken any MAP tests at all at the time they take the CogAT.
I've also heard discussions about the district sending letters to families if a student tests 95% or above in the MAP tests, telling them that they may want to consider an Advanced Learning referral. I'm not sure if this is actually happening anywhere; it may have been a recommendation around improving outreach to communities underrepresented in AL that was not implemented.
Well, not any kid can take the CogAT screener. A parent or teacher needs to refer you during an open referral window. Or if you're a second grader at a title one school, it's administered to you at school.
There's no achievement score cutoff for being allowed to take the CogAT. 3rd through 8th graders can be referred for AL testing regardless of their SBA achievement scores. Or even if they have been opted out of achievement testing.
And there are plenty of elementary schools in Seattle that don't even administer the MAP test until long after the AL testing and open enrollment window have closed. Students at those schools can still be referred for AL testing and take the CogAT screener.
To get into Spectrum or HC they need to pass certain cutoff scores on both the CogAT AND achievement testing. But not to be screened.
Thank you folks for the clarification. When we got the email from SPS telling us "This is an invitation for you to refer your child for Advanced Learning Testing. was identified as having high achievement scores during the past school year...", I had assumed the high MAP scores was a requirement. Didn't know any K-2 kid could take it.
Hello all, hoping some of you may be able to help me with a question regarding homeschooling and HCC status.
I have a 6th grader at REMS who has been in HCC since 1st grade. We have withdrawn her and started homeschooling as of this semester with the plan of keeping her in two of her courses at REMS. I understand that this maintains her HCC seat for the following year so that she can continue part-time or go back to full-time if desired.
However she wants to go to Cascade Parent Partnership instead of keeping those two classes at REMS, and then start doing part-time at REMS next year, so keeping the HCC seat would be very important if she switches to CPP for the remainder of this year.
Does anyone have experience with whether CPP enrollment preserves HCC status? I believe it does, but this is tricky because CPP caps out at 8th grade curriculum and since she's in 6th now, it's really only a solution for this year. This could give her enough time to heal from her poor experience and get excited about just doing one or two subjects next year, though.
Eligibility continues for students identified as Advanced Learners or as Highly Capable from the time of identification, as long as the student remains in SPS.
I'd assume that would include part-time enrollment at either REMS or CPP, but the rules have changed over the years so I'd get confirmation (in writing) from AL or enrollment. If your child left REMS this year, wouldn't you need to submit on-time enrollment forms during THIS enrollment period to ensure that your child could be in HCC/REMS again next year? It's not just a matter of maintaining HC eligibility, but making sure you don't miss deadlines to enroll in the designated HC pathway for 7th.
I'm not sure if the core classes at CPP are geared toward HC/advanced students - it may not be as simple as signing up for 8th grade coursework. I'm assuming you have looked into CPP and its requirements, like parents staying at the school during class time or creating and maintaining a learning plan? Are you considering CPP part-time?
Hi Samantha, we are in a similar situation to yours(kid at Cascadia from 1st grade, starting REMS next year and I've been doing some research regarding part-time enrollment at Rems). I don't know any parent who has done it and would love to hear from your experience if you would not mind sharing it with me. My email is tran1684@gmail.com. Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you!
Check out this document: https://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/School%20Board/Procedures/Series%202000/2190SP.pdf
On page 4 it says: "If a student is enrolled and leaves SPS for any reason, they will retain their Advanced Learning eligibility for up to one year (i.e. moving to anotherDistrict, state, a private school, or a parent on sabbatical leave)."
I would double check with Advanced Learning Department, but it seems that this should apply to leaving SPS for CCP for <1 year as well. I had asked AL about maintaining HCC eligibility before when thinking of going abroad for a year (which is ok).
84 comments:
I would like to hear about current experiences in the HCC program at Hamilton, also gain a sense of what the future holds for HCC at SPS. (Big question, I know).
I would like to know if/how the currently proposed new science curriculum will change the HCC science scope and sequence at the pathway middle schools, and at both HCC pathway and neighborhood high schools.
DMC
I had a child who graduated from HIMS last year, so I can't speak to current experience. However they had a stellar experience, made lots of close friends, had some really excellent teachers, and participated in a really outstanding award winning music program. My child joined HC in middle school and it really was a game changer socially and academically for them.
Former HIMS
@DMC, it’s hard to find and I don’t have the link right now, but somewhere on the district website—curriculum page? Science page? Science alignment page?—it lays out the science scope and sequence not just for GE, but also for HCC. I think it’s still a little messy as some of the earlier cross-school inconsistencies are working their way through, but it at least lays out the basic plan.
@DMC The pathway for the student would be the same whether they attend a "pathway high school" or neighborhood high school. The science sequence is also usually based upon pre-req or which course a student took previously. This is the same whether general ed or HC. Also, the HC service follows the student so their pathway is the same at the neighborhood school.
Some neighborhood schools had nearly as many HC 9th grade students enroll this past year as a pathway high school such as Ingraham. However, neighborhood school HC enrollment may drop next year with Lincoln opening or over time. There are also many more spectrum eligible students taking advanced classes at these neighborhood schools so there is a large demand for advanced classes.
HS mom
@ HS mom, I don't think that's completely accurate.
If a student joins HCC in middle school, at and HCC pathway site, they take a different set of science classes in middle school--regardless of which courses they took previously. They then complete 2 of the "high school" level courses (in 7th and 8th grades). When they get to high school, they continue with the district's sequence, but are further along in it. If they decide not to attend an HCC pathway high school, and are at a HS that has limited AP science offerings, it may be possible they could run out of science options (whereas a student at a school with a lot of AP science could probably take AP science classes for 10th-12th grades, after they finish up the new sequence classes in 9th).
I'll see if I can re-locate the scope and sequence info on the SPS website. It's crazy how they bury (hide?) things...
DisAPP
Found it!
https://www.seattleschools.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=18452
The tabs for Grades 9, 10, and 11 lay out the new GE science course sequence. The "Alternative Pathways" tab lays out the type of classes GE 11th graders can use as substitutes for the new Physics B/Chem B class. The "HCC" tab lays out the science classes HCC students (those IN the cohort, not all HC-identified students) take in 7th-12th grades.
Of note, while HCC students are--or will be, once this is fully and consistently implemented--technically 2 years ahead in science when they start high school, since they are (will be) required to take the new Physics B/Chem B class in 9th grade but advanced GE students can skip that in favor of an AP class, the difference essentially becomes only 1 year. Former HCC students can start AP science classes in 10th grade, while others can do so in 11th.
Of course, this all depends on the degree of fidelity to which principals and registrars adhere to the "official" scope and sequence, and given SPS's site-based management and the general lack of oversight and consistency re: curricular offerings, anything is possible. But this is the plan.
DisAPP
Does anyone else remember the HCC science plan including a full year of Honors Chemistry in 9th, not the new "Physics B/Chem B" they have listed?
Another issue, which was discussed a full year ago (see MW's 1/22/18 thread) - 10th grade students cannot access IB science at Ingraham, unless they are following an IBX pathway (which is now being largely discouraged). What advanced science options will be available for 10th grade (or 9th for that matter)?
anyone going to or following hcc mtss adoption committee? oh you might know it as altf3. kari hanson will not stop until it is adopted outright.
and what is it like working with devin bruckner and does she remind you all that she frangrantly mislead the board and spoke off topic while encouraging others to do the same? her website also spoke to sps grant. anyone know if that is more misleading facts or did that come from tolley who has called for all three task forces... to get the mtss hc program.
@DisAPP My apologies, I was not more clear I was referring to high school science classes, not middle school. Yes, they skip science in middle school. However in high school need to have taken a pre-req to take the next science class. In addition, for some science classes they may also need to have taken a math pre-req. Example, needing to be concurrently enrolled in Algebra II to take chemistry etc. This also points to the importance of science class options being available at a high school for HC students who may be only one year ahead in math etc. As you stated at some neighborhood schools and HC pathway schools they may have more science classes. BHS as one example has lots of science classes and electives due to biotech academy etc. We know many HC kids taking botany or some other science class in 9th grade at BHS, because they are only one year ahead in math. We also know HC kids who actually have doubled up on science in later grades as an elective. ex genetics alongside an AP science class etc. Some of the science classes not labeled as honors are extremely rigorous engaging and challenging.
HS mom
The list of materials under consideration for the science adoption are finally posted with log in and password for electronic access.
nn
K-8: Amplify, HMH - Science Dimensions, TCI Bring Science Alive
https://www.seattleschools.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=54681522
9-12: Biology, "Carbon Time"; Chemistry, "Stemscopes"; Physics, "PEER"
https://www.seattleschools.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=60949241
fyi, "Science Fair" available on Amazon now!
How many AP courses on average do Garfield HCC students take by the time they gave graduated? Typically is the progression 2 in 10th, 3 in 11th and 4-5 in 12th?
I am hearing the new high school science courses are very inferior to the older math based science courses. If a high school does also not require concurrent enrollment in Algebra II in order to take Chemistry or Physics they are not teaching a math based science course.
@DissApp You said " The "HCC" tab lays out the science classes HCC students (those IN the cohort, not all HC-identified students) take in 7th-12th grades."
I think you meant to state not all HCC students but only those who have already been accelerated two years in science, due to being in the cohort through middle school. There is no cohort at the high school level, and this pathway is not only for those going to pathway schools such as Garfield. It is also the pathway for HCC students attending neighborhood schools example RHS, BHS etc.
Yes, it's the pathway HCC students take if they are in HCC in 7th grade. HCC only exists in middle (and elementary) school, so the science pathway courses start in middle school.
It's not called HCC in high school. There are HCC pathway schools and students coming from HCC, and HC-identified students not coming from HCC. Those who have been "on the HCC pathway" (i.e., came from HCC middle school) are those to whom the HCC tab applies. Sorry if I wasn't 100% clear, but that's what I meant by "in the cohort"--they were in HCC middle school, and hence, accelerated in science.
DisAPP
We just received our child's Advanced Learning results. Our kindergartener scored 99 on 6/7 of the CogAT sub-scores with a 91 on the 7th. However, she only scored 93rd percentile on IOWA reading and 91st on IOWA math, so she was only given Advanced Learner status, not HCC.
From what I understand, the Advanced Learner/Spectrum program is effectively dead, so I don't know if it's worth pursuing. We can try for an appeal but this year the eligibility criteria for private testing has gone up to 99.6th percentile for achievement tests. I'm assuming we would only need to appeal the achievement scores, not the IQ scores?
If we did a private test and she scored above 95th percentile in math/reading would we have any hope of a successful appeal? Has anyone raised the issue of the continually increasing threshold? Any advice where to go from here or is the only option private? Has anyone had a good experience with Spectrum?
Thanks,
#missingbyafew
You'd only need to retest for scores that don't meet the eligibility threshold. Given that CogAT scores met the HC threshold and achievement results were above the Spectrum/AL threshold, it would make sense to retest in time for an appeal. Worst case, your child tests again next year. The CogAT scores are considered valid for three years, so make sure you keep a printout of the results. (Did they change that as well?? It now states "tests administered in the last 12 months." Would they dismiss qualifying, district administered CogAT scores from a year prior??)
From the appeals page: There must be documented math and/or reading scores at or above the 87th percentile (for Advanced Learner eligibility) and above the 99th percentile (for Highly Capable eligibility)
Elsewhere they state "approach 99.6%" and then they state "above the 99th percentile," so it sounds like anything above 99%. Take a screenshot!
It makes no sense to up the criteria for appeals when the program is simply not geared to serve students testing at those levels. Sure wish the HCS-AC still met so parents has a place to raise issues...
#missingbyafew
As you read through the details of an appeal, you should also note that SPS has dramatically shortened the appeal timeframe. "Appeals must be received in the Advanced Learning Office within 15 school days from the decision date as posted on the Source (for current SPS students). No extensions will be made." Appointments for testing are filling or already full, so the turnaround is tight.
Why 99.6%? Approaching 3 SD? Why? And 99% for achievement? Why not 97% or 98%? The thresholds are needlessly high. As others have asked, does AL have data indicating students entering on appeal don't perform as well unless they are testing at the 99%ile level? If not, the appeal thresholds don't seem justified.
The appeals thresholds are not justified.
DisAPP
If we did a private test and she scored above 95th percentile in math/reading would we have any hope of a successful appeal?
yes. that fits their guidelines. if not call ospi.
@DisAPP Yes, thanks for clarifying. The district is not very clear on much having to do with HC. Many parents have to ask in order to find out information. Some fellow parents with whom I have spoken with over the years have expressed confusion about high school pathway and cohort as one in the same.
As you are aware, at all high schools including Garfield and Ingraham they are not cohorted. This even is true now for IBX (which now alot fewer kids at Ingraham as majority are taking reg IB), as they are taking classes with older kids.
However some schools (Garfield, Ingraham but also BHS & RHS) have so many HC kids the classes they still have many HC kids they know from middle HCC in their classes.
If appeals test results meet the original thresholds (95% achievement), I'd submit them.
I'd also push back against the arbitrary appeals change. I'd argue against using two different definitions of "most highly capable." If they have decided HC program services are appropriate for those testing at the 98/95 levels, then that's who they've decided are the "most highly capable." If a student came from a private school or another district and they had qualifying scores from previously administered tests that they used in an appeal, would they be denied services unless they met the higher thresholds?
As far as "cohort," the program drops the C from HCC when students move on to high school, and they don't cohort HC students in HC only classes, but the idea is that they still have a critical mass of HC students, a cohort, when attending a pathway school such as Garfield of Ingraham. By having a critical mass of HC students, there are still academic peers in core classes and hopefully enough students to offer some of the more advanced courses.
I'm not sure how much good pushing back against the higher appeals threshold will do, but it can't hurt to try. The district has argued that students trying to enter on appeal have the "benefit" of private testing, so that's why the thresholds are higher. It's nonsense really--and they should or probably do know that--but that's their story.
In reality though, it all seems to be about optics, and anything they can do to decrease the number of "over-represented" groups in HCC is seen as a positive--even if that means denying services to children who are quite clearly the target group for HC services. By increasing their ability to pick up under-represented groups (e.g., via universal screening and high FRL schools) and decreasing the identification of over-represented groups (e.g., by making the appeals criteria absurdly high, having a tight appeals window, etc.), SPS can potentially make "progress" on the racial disparities in HC identification. Not actual progress, but it might look good to those who don't bother to really understand the issue.
If SPS were truly concerned with meeting the educational needs of HC students, they'd develop eligibility criteria, outreach strategies, testing protocols, appeals protocols, teacher education standards, and curricula that align with each other in support of HC students. That they've done none of those--and seem to have no interest in doing any--says all you need to know.
That said, HCC still CAN be a good fit for many HC-identified students. If you think yours is one of them, definitely push and shove and see if you can fight your way in. And if you do find a winning strategy, I'm sure others here would love to know.
DisAPP
Yeah...I know, but it needs to be challenged. I doubt the state intended prioritizing "equitable identification of low-income students" to mean intentionally restricting access or under-identifying students assumed to be non-FRL. Allowing private testing, but then restricting access to HC services despite those test results indicating a need for services seems arbitrary and capricious.
Consider OSPI suggestions "to reduce barriers to identifying low income students":
- screen all students at certain grade level(s)
- look for above-grade level WaKIDS indicators
- assess rapid growth over time with WaKIDS
- test during school day in home school
- review IEPs for students with disabilities for indicators of giftedness (twice exceptional)
- inform staff of gifted indicators and solicit referrals by staff
- use alternative assessments for English learners
- routinely review all relevant data for any new student, include referral information in enrollment packets
- reach out to families by native language speaker
What AL/SPS has stated they will or have used as strategies, all of which seem in line with OSPI suggestions:
1. Targeted universal testing of 2nd graders at all 32 Title I schools. We have adopted the Naglieri Nonverbal Aptitude Test to help ensure identification of low income and ELL students.
2. Collaboration between the Advanced Learning Office and the Rainier Scholars (RS) Program. Data sharing has resulted in significant eligibility increases among students of color.
3. Achievement-Focused Recruiting of underrepresented students. Students of color in grades 1-8 who have high achievement scores but have not been referred for Advanced Learning are sent individual invitations to participate in eligibility testing.
Does anyone know if Lincoln will continue to be a "pathway" school beyond the next couple of years? Was that decision finalized?
@Jan 8th 2:48PM "Another issue, which was discussed a full year ago (see MW's 1/22/18 thread) - 10th grade students cannot access IB science at Ingraham, unless they are following an IBX pathway (which is now being largely discouraged). What advanced science options will be available for 10th grade (or 9th for that matter)?"
Are 9th grade HC students at Ingraham currently taking the new science courses, the same pathway as general ed 9th graders?
I do know at BHS 9th grade HC can access the year long math based Chemistry or Physics courses, as long as they are ready for Algebra II. i believe its the same at Garfield and Roosevelt. 9th grade HC take those courses alongside 10th graders who are 1 year ahead in science at BHS due to biotech, & 11th graders not in biotech.
Otherwise if they are not ahead two years in math, they take other science courses ex botany etc. I think it is same at RHS and GHS.
If Ingraham does not allow HC 9th or 10th graders to access IB science courses that is a huge problem if there is no alternative, and parents need to be made aware of this limitation. I heard very few students are now doing IBX...only 1/4 or so of incoming HC? The new science courses are inferior, not good for HC kids interested in science and are not math based. It seems Ingraham regular IB is not a great fit for accelerated or gifted kids until they reach 11th grade.
It is one reason we did not choose Ingraham as we wanted access to advanced courses in 9th and 10th, and not have it be all or nothing with IBX.
Some HC students can theoretically take up to 4 AP courses next year in 10th at BHS. However we will likely start with 1-2AP alongside physics ( 2 years ahead) science. I imagine options are similar with other schools Garfield & RHS, schools with lots of HC students.
A lot of this depends on the degree of fidelity to the new science sequence. If schools are forced to adhere to it, things will be different--and the kids coming from HCC will be on a different pathway than those in GE (although by 11th grade it may be only a 1-yr difference, not 2). If schools aren't forced to adhere, you're probably looking at something similar to the status quo.
Remember, however, that the new plan takes several years to roll out. With inconsistencies in who has taken what prerequisites over the years and across schools, there has to be a lot of flexibility built into the system during these transition years. This means that just because some students are able to do x this year doesn't mean the same will be true for similar students in a year or two. It all depends on how strictly the new "plan" is implemented. If the Chem A/Physics A (GE 9th) and Biology A/B (GE 10th) classes are graduation requirements, that reduces a lot of flexibility at the school level for those first to HS years.
DisAPP
To the Anon who has an HCC appeal,
Please know that private testing is sometimes covered by health benefits and definitely by flexible spending accounts, particularly if you are referred due to a suspected learning disability. My child had similar scores as yours years ago, and it took us until 4th grade to diagnose her (relatively) low reading scores were related to vision. She was scoring in the 90ish percentiles, despite having double-vision. You might want to get a private test, if only to rule out similar issues.
Interesting development: The extra requirements to teach an HCC course have been eliminated for teachers. In the recent 'category verification' process the requirements for the 'Gifted Specialist' is to teach HCC or Spectrum classes for a year. This eliminates the entry requirements of AP or IB training, Alternative School education or experience etc. That was the process I went through 6 years ago to earn my category. Does anyone know if the school board changed this?
Theo Moriarty
Where is the info on teacher requirements, Mr. M?
@Anon Jan 11 2:42pm
The information is no longer posted on the SPS website to the best of my ability to find it. I had to email Amy Valenti in the category verification department. We were told to submit our requests for categories and they would verify it rather than posting the requirements as was done in years past. It isn't on the HR or pages for sure. Maybe someone can find the archived pages?
Theo Moriarty
@DisAPP I disagree that the appeals thresholds aren't justified. I think it's SPS's way of basically eliminating appeals without explicitly doing so. And I agree with that sentiment. If your child didn't get in, that's too bad. He/she will just have to do better next time. I get your motivation of course, what parent wouldn't want this. But every other kid had to play by the same rules, and the ones that got in, got in fair and square. Why is your kid a special snowflake? So I'm happy that SPS sets such a high bar.
Sure, the CogAT could produce some false negatives, and some children do fall into that rare case of being gifted but scoring low (though undoubtedly that's usually not the case with most parents who appeal). Still - too bad. Again, that's life. Prep them better and try again next year. Are you going to whine too if he/she doesn't get into Harvard? Honestly, I'd rather my kid be among kids that earned it rather than ones whose parents "paid" for it.
And the other things is, how does this affect other kids who qualify? I mean, spots in an HCC elementary/middle school is a finite, scarce resource, right? If a kid didn't quality through the regular process but got in through private testing, does that bump off a kid who did qualify fair and square? Have no idea whether that's the case, but I sure hope not. Does anyone have insights into this?
Sorry, but not sorry if all this comes off as mean. I'm not directing this at anyone in particular. Just stating my opinion on the appeals process. But better luck next time if your kid didn't get in (and I genuinely mean that).
-DoseOfReality
Wow. Yes, it does come off as mean and spiteful. Incredibly mean.
It seems clear SPS is attempting to reduce *private testing* as part of appeals (as they can't get rid of an appeals process, that's required by the state), but to what end?
SPS testing is not somehow more valid than other testing, and SPS specifies what additional tests are acceptable, so who gives a bleep whether a student qualifies through district testing or private testing. Has there been documentation of disparate performance in students who entered on appeal vs SPS only testing? And why are the thresholds higher ONLY for HC qualification? By SPS logic, the appeals thresholds should be adjusted higher for Spectrum/AL qualification. Huh, but they're not. Because it's bogus.
Mod note: Please use an authenticated account or sign your post with a handle/alias.
As to DoseOfReality's question. There is no fixed number of HCC seats. All qualified students are admitted.
Also as a background point, most of our peer districts have a stricter appeal process that allows only basically technical issues to be brought up.
Example from Bellevue:
"Please indicate the reason for appeal and provide an explanation:
**Please note: illness will not be considered a valid reason for appeal
Specific criteria related to the screening/testing conditions
Misapplication or miscalculation of scores"
The result of this has been a growth in the cogat test/prep industry on the Eastside. Folks here haven't adjusted yet but I expect to see that increase in popularity.
In the process of looking for things I found this statement: http://www.amysummersphd.com/response-to-sps-appeals-changes/ which was an interesting read.
Thank you for the appeals link, Ben!
monikerless
@Anonymous
"SPS testing is not somehow more valid than other testing"
But it's not an invalid one either, and that's what matters. They have to use some kind of process and this one is as good as any (its a good filtering process IMO). Again, what matters is that it's valid and fair. More than fair actually, since you get to retry year after year.
"Who gives a bleep whether a student qualifies through district testing or private testing"
Not relevant. They have a process, a fair and good one, and everybody should have to just go through it and except the results. Wanting private testing is basically an entitled way of saying "SPS I don't like your process and I won't accept its outcome if it's not to my liking. You need to instead play by my rules and accept its outcome".
"Has there been documentation of disparate performance in students who entered on appeal vs SPS only testing?"
They probably haven't measured this, but I bet if they did, they'd probably find the appeals-admitted kids score a tad lower. But again, not a relevant question along the lines of the above. There's a fair process in place and everyone should have to play by it, period.
People are hung up on the appeals criteria and I'm saying they shouldn't even allow appeals on the basis of score. I didn't know that Bellevue has already taken this approach and I'm glad to see it. Hopefully SPS will adopt the same.
Just so you don't think I'm completely mean, here's a helpful tip for the missed-by-a-few crowd. Did you know you can easily prep your kid for the test in just a couple hours? Go buy one of the prep books on Amazon and study the questions for a bit. You'll find that you can distill a couple of the hard sections down to 3 or 4 basic principles (one of which is universal for any test) your kid can follow as a framework to make the problems easy. I leave it to you as exercise to find the general patterns. But trust me, they're there. If your kid is smart and was in the ballpark, he/she will blow through it second time around with just a couple hours of this prep the day before the test.
-DoseOfReality
p.s.
@Benjamin Thanks for answer about HCC slot availability. Glad to hear that's the case.
@DoR, perhaps you should read the link.
SPS has an appeals process that allows for private testing. Parents did not create the policy, they are simply following the policy, fair and square, as you would say. Having two definitions of "most highly capable" is what's not defensible. Whatever their decided thresholds, they should be consistent. Sure, students can retest the following year...at the district's expense, when they could instead be potentially receiving services and not need further district testing.
It's helpful to look at neighboring districts. Shoreline, for example, has programming for single subject qualifiers. A student can qualify as HC in math OR reading and once a student qualifies, they qualify. They need to qualify in both areas to access the cohort programs, but for single subject qualification, they get programming at their school and from what I understand can retest the following year in the subject for which they didn't qualify. They don't have to reprove their qualification in the other subject. That is unlike SPS, where a student may qualify in math/quantitative but not in reading/verbal, or vice versa, then are left with no HC services. Bellevue limits enrollment in HC program schools - is that really the direction you'd want to go?
ML
Does anyone know what the required scores are in each of the 3 steps to get into HCC? Per my incomplete/incorrect understanding, it's:
1) 95th percentile on MAPS to quality for the cogAT screen test
2) 85th(?) percentile on the screen test to quality for the full cogAT test
3) 98th(?) percentile on the full cogAT to qualify as HC
Thanks.
@ML
I'm not saying parents shouldn't take avenues available to them. It's the whining about unfairness of the requirements is what I take issue with. And I agree that having two separate systems of requirements is absurd. And I've been consistent in advocating a solution to that - get rid of the appeals process, i.e. get rid of the private testing backdoor.
As for the article, yes, I've read it. And I took it with a grain of salt. It was really just a counter viewpoint, nothing more. One that's unsurprisingly, but understandably defensive of her profession. She goes on to state beliefs that she asserts are myths, yet doesn't actually present any data to back them up. For example, she claims the "It's easier to score high on an individually administered test than on a group test" is a myth. But she presents no data to the contrary. E.g. data like "a control study wherein kids took tests in both environments showed that...". Alas, no such data given. That's not to say that she couldn't be right. But don't claim something is a myth unless you have facts to back it up conclusively.
She also claims that pyschologists can't be bought. Hogwash. Just as the lending industry a decade ago was plagued with appraisers who commonly appraised homes right at the loan amount, I have no doubt that there are unscrupulous psychologists who will manipulate results to their paying clients' liking. Fear of professional miscounduct? Please. How would they get caught? Not like they'd be foolish enough to qualify a hopelessly unqualified kid as gifted. I'm more apt to believe that some are OK with vouching for, say a 93-percenter, knowing full well that the kid isn't going to fail at an HCC program because it's hardly a true program for the gifted. They'd never get caught, so what's the harm in helping a near-borderline kid get admitted for parents that paid good money? I'll take her articles seriously when she presents real data.
SPS has the data on test scores of private-tested versus SPS-tested HCC kids on tests taken during each school year. Years of data. It's a pity we're not privy to it to end the debate. But I digress. Just disallow appeals outside of technical grounds.
Regarding what Shoreline does, I do like that they let kids qualify into the math and reading areas independently. It's sensible and fair. As for whether I want enrollment to be limited - I don't want it expanded or contracted. I want whatever number of kids quality through one process that's valid, fair, and one that sets a high bar.
-DoseOfReality
She did explain why "easier to score high on individually administered test" is a myth. They are both standardized, norm-referenced tests. Your score is based on how you compare to other people (in the norming sample) who took the same test in roughly the same conditions. So whatever advantages you get from taking an individually-administered test, everyone who you are compared to also gets those advantages.
Say that both tests used exactly the same questions (which they don't). You might answer more questions correctly on the individually-administered tests, but your *score* wouldn't be higher because everyone else would also answer more questions correctly, and your score is based on how you compare to everyone else.
Of course, there are some kids whose standard scores on group tests might be expected to be lower than their standard scores on an individually-administered test, such as kids with disorders like ADHD or ASD, kids with anxiety, etc. They are affected more by the group testing conditions than typical kids. That is one argument for allowing appeals: that the group testing disadvantages 2e kids unfairly. It would be nice if the kids' 504s/IEPs included one-on-one testing as a matter of course, but apparently they don't. I don't have data that 2e kids score lower on group tests (although I do have plenty of anecdotal evidence!). Maybe someone else does.
I have the feeling (but don't have data) that the CogAT results are less reliable than individually-administered tests because I think that it's more likely for kids to flub it not based on cognitive abilities. So kids who do great in group testing environments would get higher scores than their actual cognitive abilities would warrant because some of their more cognitively-able peers (i.e. who they are being compared to) tanked it.
-George
@George
Oh I get the explanation of why it *could* be a myth. But can we agree that until she puts data on it, it's as much conjecture as the other side of the argument?
In any case, you are contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you're arguing it's a myth because while kids could get a higher *number* of questions right in an individual test, their relative scores should not change since as you point out, other kids will have the same advantages. Then on the other hand, you offer anecdotal evidence that kids do score higher in individual testing than with group testing. Granted that's in the context of ADHD/ASD kids. But again, as you said, since these scores are always relative (percentiles), they should be produce the same result. And so if a kid gets a higher relative score with individual testing than with group testing, then by definition, it means it's easier to get a higher score with it than the other. And if they don't produce different scores, then why bother? But again, where's the data (I'm not asking you specifically)?
What you're really arguing is that the cogAT is flawed. I'm not going to get into that debate, except only to say that while I don't think it's perfect (what is?), it's a good one and is probably the best that SPS can do at scale. And it's fair, expecially with the unlimited retries. Although if a kid can't pass after 1st, 2nd, 3rd try, etc., then I'd say the parents have bigger problems to solve if group anxiety is the reason behind it.
Personally I find it hard to believe that *individual* testing, where psychologist have different levels of competency, conditions of the physical environment is different, kid's varying comfort level with pyschologists, different expectations set on it by psychologists, etc., that all of that has less variability than when students are all taking the test with the same physical environment, same test, same questions, etc.. I'm not against individual testing per se, but if SPS continues to allow this backdoor, they should allow it to be administered only by a handful psychologists who they've thoroughly vetted as competent and impartial to reduce all the variability (and potential shenanigans).
Anyway, I've said my piece on this and will bow out now. Good luck on your kids' next test.
-DoseOfReality
@DoR, your idea of fairness confounds me. If the true goal of testing is to identify students who are highly capable and thus need highly capable services, how is it fair to ONLY use a testing procedure that disproportionately impacts certain students, such as kids with disorders like ADHD or ASD, anxiety, etc., who are affected more by the group testing conditions than typical kids? You may not like 2e kids, but they do exist--and IMHO it's unfair (and unethical) to put them at a disadvantage because the district decided to prefer testing protocols that work just fine for neurotypical kids. (Or, to put it in your terms, why do neurotypical kids get to the be special snowflakes around whom the testing protocol is designed?)
At first I thought you were being sarcastic when you said you think the appeals thresholds are justified because "if your child didn't get in, that's too bad. He/she will just have to do better next time." Then I sadly realized you were serious. This idea that "every other kid had to play be the same rules" and that "the ones that got in, got in fair and square" is based on an incorrect assumption that equal means equitable and fair. Equity and fairness are based on the idea that sometimes, in the interest of leveling the playing field--AKA fairness--we do things a little differently for some people. Like those with learning disabilities or special needs.
But, your dismissiveness of 2e students tells me all I need to know. As you said, "the CogAT could produce some false negatives, and some children do fall into that rare case of being gifted but scoring low (though undoubtedly that's usually not the case with most parents who appeal). Still - too bad." The unkindness--and lack of concern for children's welfare--behind that remark is stunning, but thanks for your honesty. And your advice: "that's life. Prep them better and try again next year." Really? You just acknowledged that some of these kids may be 2e, so test prep probably isn't the solution. (I also suspect the number of 2e students is higher than you think.)
As to this idea that kids getting in on appeal would somehow steal spots from other kids who you for some reason assume are more qualified, as others as pointe out already, there are not a fixed number of seats. Kids who get in on appeal also seem to do as well as those who qualify via group testing (the district has previously presented data on state test scores that show HCC students, overall, do very well--if there were a bunch of cheaters and fakes in the program, that would drag the results down). Soooo....those who get in on appeals do well (i.e., they are qualified), and they don't prevent anyone else from getting in. So the problem is what?
DisAPP
optics da. it is all optics. that is why you have honors for all south of the ship canal and ibx north.
keep in mind this was all stephen driven by devin bruckner's repeated testimony to the board. the objective is to get higher percentages of students black/hispanic even if that is achieved by qualifying less white and asian kids.
no caps
Legally, the district’s definition of highly capable must:
1. Align to state law, WAC 392-170-035:
"highly capable students are students who perform or show potential for performing at significantly advanced academic levels when compared with others of their age, experiences, or environments. Outstanding abilities are seen within students' general intellectual aptitudes, specific academic abilities, and/or creative productivities within a specific domain. These students are present not only in the general populace, but are present within all protected classes according to chapters 28A.640 and 28A.642 RCW."
and
2. Clarify who meets the criteria for most highly capable district-wide.
WAC 392-170-036
Definition—Learning characteristics.
As used in this chapter, the term learning characteristics means that students who are highly capable may possess, but are not limited to, these learning characteristics:
(1) Capacity to learn with unusual depth of understanding, to retain what has been learned, and to transfer learning to new situations;
(2) Capacity and willingness to deal with increasing levels of abstraction and complexity earlier than their chronological peers;
(3) Creative ability to make unusual connections among ideas and concepts;
(4) Ability to learn quickly in their area(s) of intellectual strength; and
(5) Capacity for intense concentration and/or focus.
The main problem with the multiple cutoff identification model that Seattle uses is that this practice is one of the main culprits when it comes to maintaining a relatively undiverse HC population. It keeps out students who show potential for performing at significantly advanced academic levels when compared with others of their age, experiences, or environments. It also keeps out students who would qualify in a single domain. It is troubling that Thurgood Marshall's Racial Equity in HCC PTA group seemed to promote this multiple cutoff model that helps prevent racial equity in HCC.
Does anyone know the HCC pathway for kids in the Roosevelt HS boundaries? I thought it was Lincoln but SPS enrollment is telling me it’s Garfield. TIA!
Does anyone know the HCC pathway for kids in the Roosevelt HS boundaries? I thought it was Lincoln but SPS enrollment is telling me it’s Garfield. TIA!
And what about kids who get 99 percentile on all sections of CogAt and miss the academic by a single point?
Is that kid somehow not gifted but a kid with two 98’s on the CogAt and 95’s on the academic is?
Seems like a perfect recipe for keeping bright kids who may have different life experiences out of the HCC program.
@missedbyafewtoo
Does anyone know the HCC pathway for kids in the Roosevelt HS boundaries? I thought it was Lincoln but SPS enrollment is telling me it’s Garfield. TIA!
lhs is your pathway with an alternate for ibx
Per SPS Policy 2190SP:
SP S's established eligibility thresholds are not absolute disqualifiers; teacher and parent/guardian input are also important considerations. In order to provide equitable opportunities for all students and to uphold the intent of WAC language regarding protected classes [WAC 392-170-035], the MSC will give special consideration to and assess the impact of the following factors: cultural diversity, socio-economic status, linguistic background, and identified disability.
Someone mentioned a shorter appeals window, but the 15 working days is consistent with the latest policy (approved 8/24/16): "Appeals must be received in the Advanced Learning Office within three weeks from the date postmarked on the eligibility decision notification so that decisions can be made for enrollment purposes." Are parents now notified via email, the same day a decision is posted on the Source? Seems like that would be an improvement over snail mail.
To Missedbyafewtoo:
Yes, your child is not gifted and does not deserve/warrant a quality education in the eyes of Seattle Public Schools.
I'm in your shoes as well and am coming to acceptance that a high CogAT score is meaningless.
What is the virtue in not being 'gifted'? That's something I'm still trying to figure out for my child.
Hope it works out for you next year.
@missedbyafew
Hi, I have a middle schooler who is special Ed and HCC designated in 8th grade right now, but taking Algebra. He is considering taking 9th and/or 10th grade science next year in high school, but would continue with next level of Math. I expect the high school will let him enroll in the science of his choice (and for the purpose this discussion, let's assume I am correct about that). Given he wouldn't be in any "HCC" classes I assume that teachers wouldn't know he is HCC designated - or do teachers have some way of seeing that? He has experienced some anti-HCC bias from certain teachers and staff in middle school. If that HCC designation is going to "follow him around" in high school, and doesn't support his academic path anymore, I would just as soon have the designation removed. But if teachers don't see it, then it probably doesn't matter, or perhaps I am overlooking some other reason to leave it alone. Thanks for any thoughts.
-Josie
@Josie
At most high schools the level of math also may determine which science your student can take. If your student is one level above in math in 8th grade yet, has already taken 2 levels ahead science (Bio) they would most likely have a choice of various science (electives) at many schools, but could not take Chem or Physics yet at schools offering the full year chem or physics. Students need to be at Algebra II level as those courses are math based.
The principals have access to information on HC designated kids, but I don't think the teachers would know the designation. Unless it was a science teacher teaching 11th grade science who knows they have 9th graders. They do know the grade of their students. Some schools also may have a mix of 9th, 10th & 11th in the same class due to Biotech (ex BHS) that accelerate students 1 year ahead in science.
I believe there are three reasons why SPS changed the appeals process. First, they want fewer students in HCC. Second, there is a perception that privileged white students are more likely to qualify on appeal than low-income minorities. Third, fewer appeals mean less work and historically Advanced Learning has been stretched. Given these objectives, I’m doubtful that in most cases the district will make exceptions to the criteria.
With regards to appeals, there are multiple reasons private testing can make qualification easier. First, there is no way for SPS to know how many times a student has been privately tested and taking any test multiple times generally makes it easier and increases the odds that at some point a student might pass. Second, with regards to the achievement tests, there are many options which could make it easier. For example, a parent simply might have their student tested on reading as compared to the broader language arts tested administered by the district. Third, private testing can be more forgiving. I recall the districts full COGAT battery being given one year with no lunch break; I doubt any private tester would ask a kindergarten, for example, to sit through the entire test with only bathroom and water breaks. I recall a student who once took a nap during the district’s COGAT testing, and the administrator could have cared less. The student failed the district’s test and then passed the private test.
I believe it’s easy to boost a COGAT score through test prep, but that doesn’t mean its easy to boost it to the 99th percentile through test prep. In many ways, its no different than SAT test prep; a few hours of study can improve your score and familiarize the test taker with the format, but that’s it. If you don’t believe me, then look at a sample test because it will become obvious for example that there is no way to ace the math test unless you are very good at math. Is it unfair to prepare for the COGAT or the achievement tests? Of course not. Even the COGAT author recommends taking a practice test for familiarization. The COGAT measures “learned reasoning abilities”, not innate IQ.
Overall, the districts testing procedure is not perfect, but I also don’t believe is unreasonable given its objectives. Whether or not its objectives are reasonable is a different question.
@missedbyafew
We were in your boat as well, but it was reversed. Teacher told us to have kid tested during 1st grade year. It was apparent to teacher kid was extremely gifted especially in math, told us she learned from our kid how to think about math differently. But Kid missed Cogat when tested by one point (97%) in 2nd grade.
We tested again later in 4th. Kid tested 99% Cogat & also had tested privately as we really felt needed HC and was also 99%, we were ready to appeal at that point if it had been needed.
Kid entered HC and wow what a difference in academic and social experience. Also was consistently been told by teachers one of strongest students academically in class, it was right place.
Looking back my kid was sick for many years with stomach issues and we did not know cause. I think it affected performance initially on first test in 2nd grade. These tests are not foolproof. There actually needs to be more flexibility in identification not less. I would test again as your child should qualify with those Cogat scores.
Also, Dr Herzog director of the UW Robinson's center (gifted ed) told me that SPS should not be testing kids in kindergarten, as is too inaccurate at that age. She also mentioned that the older they get the more accurate the results. It is also harder to qualify via cogat or WISC (private test) later on when kid is in 4th, 5th or 6th grade. I found that interesting. We are not affluent and not parents who even were aware of HCC when our child was in kindergarten.
KL
Agree that testing is often not accurate in Kindergarten. But it would be terrible for many kids to not have HCC available in 1st grade. Some kids just do not do at all well in gen ed, and it's immediately obvious to everyone involved.
- save the 6-year-olds
@save the 6 year-olds
If testing is not valid that young according to leading researchers in gifted ed and if they are making this recommendation, it does not seem like it should be done. My child survived for years in "general ed" until testing in later on and at 99%. It was not the best fit and would have been better to have been in cohort earlier.
However, I don't think waiting a year or two to test until the test is considered more valid is a big deal. It sounds more like a best practice that should be followed to ensure validity.
In addition, it seems that very affluent families are the only ones testing in K because they are the only ones aware of HCC. The biggest surprise for us was the fact that so many kids in SPS who tested in at kindergarten also had difficulty in HCC. I was flabbergasted that we were told by teachers my kid was an outlier even in HCC. Tested later and actually was harder to test in at that age.
KL
@ KL,
If the testing the district uses for HCC eligibility is not sufficiently accurate in earlier grades, they should be using other methods to determine eligibility--not just scrapping early identification. I seriously doubt Dr. Herzog was saying you can't identify giftedness in young children. There are kids in which it's pretty darn clear in preschool. Maybe we just need a modified process. (Note: the state also requires that we have a process starting with K).
You also said "the biggest surprise for us was the fact that so many kids in SPS who tested in at kindergarten also had difficulty in HCC." How many kids? I've never seen any data on this. Was this anecdotal evidence from your child's first grade HCC teacher?
unclear
"There are a handful of studies that have addressed the utility of kindergarten
assessments in predicting academic achievement past the third grade (Augustyniak et al.,
2004; Badian, 1988; Butler, Marsh, Sheppard, & Sheppard, 1985). In each of these
studies the kindergarten screening or readiness measure was found to be positively and
significantly correlated with academic achievement in the fourth, eighth, and sixth4
grades, respectively"
Dr. Herzog is not the last word in gifted ed. (Thankfully since despite working at the Robinson center she's barely in supported of gifted ed at all)
Is there any reason SPS can't require students to re-qualify for HCC services for 6th grade and beyond? That's when classes start becoming more sequential and changes in status would create more schedule complications. There are also a lot of new HCC students starting in 6th grade, so there's lots of churn. Students often end up at different middle schools than many of their elementary classmates as it is, so it also would not be that socially disruptive.
I think state law requires that once students are identified as HC they need to receive a continuum of services, but I don't recall seeing anything about "unidentifying" students as HC. There is mention of an exit process, but I don't think it mentions anything about testing. The OSPI info re: exits, however, mentions "student no longer qualifies" as one of the possible reasons for exit. This suggests you CAN have students requalify. It would add to the costs, of course, but it might also help with the optics and some of these "legacy" students who qualified early but maybe do not still need HCC.
The only reason I bring that up here is that I think it's essential to maintain access to HCC (or similar) services for students who are in the 98th+ percentile as early as K. Whether they are truly gifted or just advanced for their age, they need something different than their fellow classmates in those early years. Whether they continue to need it in middle school is TBD.
thinking aloud
In addition, it seems that very affluent families are the only ones testing in K because they are the only ones aware of HCC.
Can we please refrain from using anecdata to make such broad assumptions? I'd also refrain from making assumptions about a student's performance once in HCC - there is still a curve of performance and abilities within HC, and some students are 2E. Just because a student doesn't get straight A's, does not mean they don't belong in HCC. There is a process for counseling students if they seem to be struggling to keep up.
Way back when, the district used to require retesting if a student tested, qualified, but then chose not to enroll. They finally dropped that requirement, which was a good thing, as it seemed like a waste of the district's limited resources. Now students can test in elementary, then decide if they want to transition to HCC in 6th or whenever.
The primary goal should be getting students into the most appropriate learning environment, then actually providing an appropriate education. And "legacy students?" Wow. Pretty loaded term.
Who said anything about "legacy students"? I did not use that term in my post, go re-read. I also am also really confused about the hostile defensiveness about my comment that "it seems that most students testing into HCC in K seem to also come from more affluent families."
I thought most HCC parents agree there is a lack of representation and/or lack of knowledge about HCC service from lower income families?
I also have heard from a child psychologist that IQ is not as stable as many believe. It is influenced somewhat by environment. As kids grow I do believe that IQ is also impacted, same as their growth would be in other areas.
I appreciate the poster who pointed out the fact that it is unfair to judge kids who seem to be struggling academically in the HCC program. We do know a few in that position who yes are also 2E, and I apologize for my comment which was not sensitive. I want to add that I believe there are also other reasons (besides academics) that many of the kids do benefit from the cohort.
I also appreciate the poster who pointed out that Dr Herzog may represent one viewpoint in gifted ed. I have no idea actually but she did state "SPS should not be testing them in kindergarten as it is not valid" within the context of a conversation about under-representation of low income and minority students in HCC. I interpreted the statement as it was stated. It's possible a different test may be more valid.
KL
Hi I have a kid who tested high enough for HCC on the Cogat portion but not on the achievement portion. I wonder, if she has MAP scores >95% this spring (when her school administers the test), would she then possibly be able to qualify for HCC? I e-mailed AL about this but have not received a response.
If we decide to retest her next fall, does she need to repeat the Cogat test, or would she just need to do the achievement portion to be able to get her considered for HCC? That is, would the Cogat results from this year still be valid?
All my kids tested 99% in k and MS (for private school). Herzog is more of a social scientist than a gifted Ed scientist. Look at her published work.
Anon@10:29, your child would need to go through the full battery of tests again, but you could potentially use this year's qualifying CogAT scores if needed for an appeal. If your child meets district administered achievement thresholds next year, but for some reason not CogAT scores, the qualifying CogAT scores from this year should be valid for next year. AL would make initial decisions based on next year's scores, but this year's CogAT scores (and district administered MAP, though not for K) could serve as a backup for appeals. That said, the AL appeals info does not explicitly state that district administered CogAT scores are valid for 3 years, and only mentions scores from elsewhere:
The Appeals Committee will consider results from privately administered intelligence tests that have been completed within the last three years. Verbal Reasoning and Quantitative Reasoning scores from the ERB if done in a school setting within the previous 12 months.
The question is, would AL hold a child to the higher HC thresholds when using district administered tests as part of the appeal? The policies aren't so clear, are they?
But then AL also states this, when listing what can be included in an appeal:
Results of additional assessments.
-Qualifying SPS fall or winter achievement scores in math and reading when available may be used to support an appeal. There must be documented math and/or reading scores at or above the 87th percentile (for Advanced Learner eligibility) and above the 99th percentile (for Highly Capable eligibility)
-tests administered within the last 12 months
Wait, what? If a student appeals with district administered achievement tests, they must meet higher HC thresholds as well?? And which tests administered in the last 12 months? Does that just apply to achievement tests, or to CogAT as well?
"All my kids tested 99% in k and MS (for private school)." And that illustrates...? That you think IQ is stable in kindergarten for all children? And my kid missed HCC by one point (97%) when tested first time, but tested at the 99% (not even the 98!) when tested again years later same school administered Cogat test. I heard from a child psychologist that IQ is not set in stone at a young age, not Hertzog. I have also heard many stories like ours. But you are an expert? Hertzog runs the Robinson center for gifted ed, so I do think she may have at least a bit of credibility, but perhaps there is disagreement upon best practices in the field.
KL
Why is the appeal standard so much higher than the regular testing requirements? Hidden somewhere in a board report from a couple of years ago there was this:
"Racial Equity & Analysis Tool (REAT) implementation spearheaded by Maria Breuder (L4L Supt. intern) regarding social justice aspects of the [AL/HC] appeal process."
Had the most recent appeal process gone through formal board review would it have been put into policy?
Our daughter received an eligibility decision of CAL, which we appealed (she's in 99th percentile across most of the CogAt, and 96 Math and 93 Reading on MAP). We included teacher comments, the scores, etc in the appeal packet.
We submitted the packet last Thursday, and for giggles I logged into The Source over the weekend. To my surprise in the Advanced Learning section there's already has an "appeal decision" that shows "continued advanced learning" but a future date of 1/31/2019 - I find it shocking to imagine they actually even opened the packet on Friday (and the weekend + MLK weren't work days). And it still says "if you wish to appeal this decision go read these instructions..." like it did after the initial eligibility decision was posted. I know there are no appeals of appeals.
We've gotten no email notification of an appeal decision, and in the past the district has "accidentally" sent out notifications via email that turned out to be unnecessary or wrong.
Is this just some weirdness of the source to indicate that they've received the packet and we will get a decision by the 31st? Does anyone know?
Similarly - has anyone had a successful appeal? The web site lists thresholds and rules that are so confusing they're either just mostly wrong, or the appeals process is basically just a sham now designed to meet the letter of the law, but not to really actually consider any edge cases.
So I see a few posts about kids having qualifying cogAT scores, but not having qualifying MAP scores (less than 95%). I thought a kid had to score 95% to begin with in order to take the cogAT? Can someone clarify how a kid is able to take the cogAT without qualifying MAP scores?
Confused
FWIW, as far as private testing being easier, my child actually fared worse on private testing for achievement than the IOWA tests. They took off points because my five-year-old reversed some numbers. On a multiple choice test, that wouldn't be an issue.
-YMMV
Confused: Any kid can take the Cogat screening test. If the score>94% they take the full Cogat. MAP is done at school.
Confused:
You may be mixing up the CogAT screener with MAP scores. For kids in grades K-2, the first step for cognitive testing is the CogAT screener, a shorter test with samples from several CogAT sections. Those who score in a certain range on the screener are then scheduled to take the full CogAT battery (all I can find on the website is a mention of "scores in the superior range" but I was under the impression that the cutoff score was 94% or 95% - not sure if that was ever official). Kids in grades 3-8 don't take the screener; they take the full CogAT to start with.
This is all a totally separate process from MAP testing (standardized testing for reading and math, administered in school for grades K-2), and as far as I know there is no requirement that kids have qualifying MAP scores in order to sit for the CogAT. And for kids in K, they may not have taken any MAP tests at all at the time they take the CogAT.
I've also heard discussions about the district sending letters to families if a student tests 95% or above in the MAP tests, telling them that they may want to consider an Advanced Learning referral. I'm not sure if this is actually happening anywhere; it may have been a recommendation around improving outreach to communities underrepresented in AL that was not implemented.
Central District Parent
The testing is also used to identify those who qualify as AL (lower cut-offs), not just HC.
What is going on with the suspended HCS-AC? There was a survey...then silence.
Well, not any kid can take the CogAT screener. A parent or teacher needs to refer you during an open referral window. Or if you're a second grader at a title one school, it's administered to you at school.
There's no achievement score cutoff for being allowed to take the CogAT. 3rd through 8th graders can be referred for AL testing regardless of their SBA achievement scores. Or even if they have been opted out of achievement testing.
And there are plenty of elementary schools in Seattle that don't even administer the MAP test until long after the AL testing and open enrollment window have closed. Students at those schools can still be referred for AL testing and take the CogAT screener.
To get into Spectrum or HC they need to pass certain cutoff scores on both the CogAT AND achievement testing. But not to be screened.
Thank you folks for the clarification. When we got the email from SPS telling us "This is an invitation for you to refer your child for Advanced Learning Testing. was identified as having high achievement scores during the past school year...", I had assumed the high MAP scores was a requirement. Didn't know any K-2 kid could take it.
No longer confused.
Hello all, hoping some of you may be able to help me with a question regarding homeschooling and HCC status.
I have a 6th grader at REMS who has been in HCC since 1st grade. We have withdrawn her and started homeschooling as of this semester with the plan of keeping her in two of her courses at REMS. I understand that this maintains her HCC seat for the following year so that she can continue part-time or go back to full-time if desired.
However she wants to go to Cascade Parent Partnership instead of keeping those two classes at REMS, and then start doing part-time at REMS next year, so keeping the HCC seat would be very important if she switches to CPP for the remainder of this year.
Does anyone have experience with whether CPP enrollment preserves HCC status? I believe it does, but this is tricky because CPP caps out at 8th grade curriculum and since she's in 6th now, it's really only a solution for this year. This could give her enough time to heal from her poor experience and get excited about just doing one or two subjects next year, though.
Thanks to anyone who can chime in with info!
According to procedure 2190SP:
Eligibility continues for students identified as Advanced Learners or as Highly Capable from the time of identification, as long as the student remains in SPS.
I'd assume that would include part-time enrollment at either REMS or CPP, but the rules have changed over the years so I'd get confirmation (in writing) from AL or enrollment. If your child left REMS this year, wouldn't you need to submit on-time enrollment forms during THIS enrollment period to ensure that your child could be in HCC/REMS again next year? It's not just a matter of maintaining HC eligibility, but making sure you don't miss deadlines to enroll in the designated HC pathway for 7th.
I'm not sure if the core classes at CPP are geared toward HC/advanced students - it may not be as simple as signing up for 8th grade coursework. I'm assuming you have looked into CPP and its requirements, like parents staying at the school during class time or creating and maintaining a learning plan? Are you considering CPP part-time?
Hi Samantha, we are in a similar situation to yours(kid at Cascadia from 1st grade, starting REMS next year and I've been doing some research regarding part-time enrollment at Rems). I don't know any parent who has done it and would love to hear from your experience if you would not mind sharing it with me. My email is tran1684@gmail.com. Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you!
@Samantha:
Check out this document:
https://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/School%20Board/Procedures/Series%202000/2190SP.pdf
On page 4 it says:
"If a student is enrolled and leaves SPS for any reason, they will retain their Advanced Learning eligibility for up to one year (i.e. moving to anotherDistrict, state, a private school, or a parent on sabbatical leave)."
I would double check with Advanced Learning Department, but it seems that this should apply to leaving SPS for CCP for <1 year as well. I had asked AL about maintaining HCC eligibility before when thinking of going abroad for a year (which is ok).
Post a Comment