tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post465864140703352129..comments2024-02-28T22:24:07.299-08:00Comments on Community Forum for HCC (APP) in Seattle Schools: Q&A with APP ACAndrew Siegelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06830585083467140758noreply@blogger.comBlogger167125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-92132988750249459412010-11-21T10:49:56.594-08:002010-11-21T10:49:56.594-08:00Anon November 18, 2010 9:57 PM:
Maybe it is time ...Anon November 18, 2010 9:57 PM:<br /><br />Maybe it is time for you to step up and take over the APP-AC committee as it sounds like you would do such a better job!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-13530085668987249012010-11-19T14:58:27.584-08:002010-11-19T14:58:27.584-08:00Hi Anonymous at 9:57pm,
as a matter of fact, my 2e...Hi Anonymous at 9:57pm,<br />as a matter of fact, my 2e child (who missed 73 days of math and other classes due to his health impairment last year) DID move to Hamilton for 8th grade. So yes, we experienced first-hand the effects of the splits,<br />and it was probably hardest on that 8th grade class many of whom have been together since 1st grade, like my son with his friends. <br />I don't think it's fair for anyone to compare experiences, as we have our hands full at my home.<br /><br />All I can say to your comments is be careful what assumptions you make about people.<br />Again, the personal insults about anyone, particularly hiding behind anonymity, are really unnecessary.<br />StephanieStephanie Bowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16064313687961012728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-75480818519798062212010-11-19T14:12:35.692-08:002010-11-19T14:12:35.692-08:00Actually, I do attend meetings (TM PTSA, APP-AC), ...Actually, I do attend meetings (TM PTSA, APP-AC), and I read this blog. I also talk to other TM parents. So, I believe that not all perspectives are represented in the available public forums.<br /><br />I know that APP is different now than it was prior to the split, and as I said previously, I know it’s not perfect (I have my own wish list of improvements). I am reacting to Anonymous' “lesser program” comment because I think it is unfair to make generalizations that can reflect on the teachers and staff who are in the classroom with our kids every day, and have been working in the APP program for years.<br /><br />- TM ParentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-74689338220673705992010-11-19T12:36:08.937-08:002010-11-19T12:36:08.937-08:00Its interesting when you get this comparison of pr...Its interesting when you get this comparison of programs/buildings - which is a natural consequence of the split program. <br /><br />I feel that a lot of it comes from biased opinions based on a small group of parents and the need to convince yourself that "my child is attending the better program".<br /><br />The TM assessment must be 100% based on last year -- as the only thing that I have heard this year from my neighbors that attend the school is that the climate is so much better and the small size of the program has been beneficial due to smaller class sizes. There is no argument that the administration and teachers at TM are every bit as qualified and successful at teaching this group of kids as the Lowell staff.<br /><br />We also heard prior to the split the mantra of "we (primarily North-end parents) feel so sorry for WMS kids -- it is going to be so much worse than Hamilton". Well - that didn't really pan out did it? But I haven't heard anything from WMS families saying Hamilton is a "lesser program".<br /><br />I do think the program was stronger when it was a whole - but I would ask that when you are making that point - please refrain from the blanket statement of which program is "better" than the other. I believe that it is very subjective - and unless you are part of the program that you are belittling - you don't really know.<br /><br />Just my two cents...CCMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07038994914929300444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-74186296493786741042010-11-19T12:07:13.127-08:002010-11-19T12:07:13.127-08:00Anonymous,
TM may be working fine for you, but th...Anonymous,<br /><br />TM may be working fine for you, but the general feeling is that Lowell is working much better. If you get out to the meetings and listen to the conversations, that's what you'll hear.<br /><br />While the poster above you is obviously upset and overly abrasive, I think the point is that <i>neither</i> building is working as well as Lowell worked when it was a cohesive building.<br /><br />The situation is far more nuanced than people appreciate. Yes, the APP AC does a LOT (LOTS and LOTS) of work advocating for our program. It's an incredible amount of work. The question is: how effective has it been? Were we really ever faced with a Hawthorne/TM split, or was that a ploy to lull the community into accepting a Lowell/TM split? Without reaching into the brain of a small handful of people, there's no way to know. Also, remember it's not just the splits, there's a lot of work and advocacy that goes on for small gains around the edges.<br /><br /><i>Is it really appropriate for you to spend all of your time at APP-AC meetings giddiliy praising the great job Bob Vaughan is doing while APP is slowly unraveled before everyone's eyes?</i><br /><br />I have to agree with this. Bob is in a very difficult position, squeezed between doing what is right, and keeping his job. We would be worse off without him, but I don't think he has been doing a very effective job at holding together the strengths of our program and I'm disappointed in his work over the past 1-2 years. But if you ever worked with his predecessor you'd know that things can be a LOT worse.none1111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-43003800250504121862010-11-19T11:53:50.844-08:002010-11-19T11:53:50.844-08:00I have one more thing to add to my comment from la...I have one more thing to add to my comment from last night (10:59):<br /><br />*Every* APP teacher at TM taught at Lowell, some for a very long time. Julie B. was the principal at Lowell. Does moving a few miles south make them less capable of doing their jobs? I say no. <br /><br />Sure, the environment is different. But these teachers are teaching the same thing, the same way, to similar kids. You do a tremendous disservice to these teachers and Julie by making blanket statement that APP at TM is a “lesser program”. <br /><br /><br />- TM ParentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-27484153709727244372010-11-18T22:59:23.972-08:002010-11-18T22:59:23.972-08:00Anonymous at 9:57:
There has been a lot of debate ...Anonymous at 9:57:<br />There has been a lot of debate on this blog recently about inequities between Hamilton and Washington. <br /><br />Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I have not read a single mention about inequities between Lowell and Thurgood Marshall in any of the recent threads. What evidence do you have that supports your claim that it APP at Thurgood Marshall is a "lesser program"? Do you have children enrolled there?<br /><br />Yes, there were bumps at TM last year, and yes the enrollment is smaller than Lowell (which I understand is an issue that the Advanced Learning Office is trying to solve). <br /><br />Yet - I can't speak for the entire APP TM population, or the rest of the TM population - my child is in his 2nd year at TM and is thriving. He is learning, enjoys his friends, is excited to go to school every day, and has very good teachers. And the admin staff, led by Julie B, is working hard to build a community. <br /><br />Is APP perfect? No. But the APP teachers at TM are doing a fine job. I take offense to your calling TM a "lesser program".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-87906852448739611642010-11-18T21:57:02.715-08:002010-11-18T21:57:02.715-08:00Stephanie--I think your whiny, defensive tone is a...Stephanie--I think your whiny, defensive tone is a little shocking. Re-read the posts. People wouldn't sound so disappointed with your performance on the APP-AC if they weren't, well, so, disappointed. Were any of your kids deported to lesser programs at Thurgood Marshall or Hamilton after all of your obsequious audiences with the school board or any of your disingenuous pep rallies for the APP community? Is it really appropriate for you to spend all of your time at APP-AC meetings giddiliy praising the great job Bob Vaughan is doing while APP is slowly unraveled before everyone's eyes? I really don't think you've done an adequate job explaining to the community why you're so proud of the work you're doing. Do you really believe that the kids in APP are better off than they were when you took the helm of the APP-AC? Our family certainly hasn't weathered the changes very well. And no, that doesn't mean that our kids simply aren't right for the program. It means that APP is failing them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-78689860486779258452010-11-17T17:01:21.517-08:002010-11-17T17:01:21.517-08:00Stephanie-
I also want to chime in and say I appr...Stephanie-<br /><br />I also want to chime in and say I appreciate you taking the time to answer questions on this forum.<br /><br />I posted previously on this thread, but my negativity was NOT aimed at you, it was aimed at the district. As you very well know, the APP community was hit hard two years ago and now we are getting it again. I am at Lowell, and many parents are still mad from two years ago. The wounds have not yet healed, and this just opens them right back up.<br /><br />You are the closest we get to communication with the district, so you get the anger. If the district would actually communicate with parents (perish the thought), I think that would help your role a lot. As it is, you are the stand in for the district.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-38824212788816237582010-11-17T16:28:53.090-08:002010-11-17T16:28:53.090-08:00HI Greg,
sorry, my comments were not directed to y...HI Greg,<br />sorry, my comments were not directed to you. I can imagine this is an extremely time-consuming job that largely goes without thanks, so at least let me thank you!<br />Thank you for posting my opening comments--I do appreciate it.<br /><br />I got a really good email response from the Superintendent today.<br /><br />Another format of Q and A I'd be willing to try, perhaps when people have a lot of questions about the ingraham and garfield situations specifically. I think Bird had a great idea with the invited guests.<br />And thanks, Bird, for your thanks as well!<br />Thanks again, <br />StephanieStephanie Bowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16064313687961012728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-85757413690945873272010-11-17T10:43:23.174-08:002010-11-17T10:43:23.174-08:00I want to thank Stephanie for participating in the...I want to thank Stephanie for participating in the Q&A. I know it was very helpfult to me, and I can imagine it was helpful to others.<br /><br />Greg, I'd be interested in similar threads with "invited guests". Dr Bob?<br /><br />Though I don't know if anyone else would sign up for such a thing for fear of being exposed to the strong sentiments of unhappy parents.Birdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16540428343439198125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-54231648557580871352010-11-17T10:05:07.223-08:002010-11-17T10:05:07.223-08:00Hi, Stephanie. I apologize that the Q&A was f...Hi, Stephanie. I apologize that the Q&A was frustrating.<br /><br />I don't appreciate you attacking me though. I only moderate this blog and, like you, I am a volunteer. I have no agenda other than to provide another way for APP parents to talk with each other, another way that is not under as many controls as other channels. I think this blog serves that purpose.<br /><br />I want to thank you again for doing this Q&A. Despite the unstructured and sometimes angry discussion, I think it was helpful in increasing transparency and understanding of the work and role of the APP AC.<br /><br />I hope you or other APP AC members will do it again in the future. Perhaps next time we can add a little more structure if that might make things more comfortable, maybe asking participants to try to stick to posting short questions and then you could repeat the question with brief responses? Would that work better?Greg Lindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09216403000599463072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-6079875158358962402010-11-17T09:06:42.440-08:002010-11-17T09:06:42.440-08:00HI Greg,
it's looking l like a lot of the ques...HI Greg,<br />it's looking l like a lot of the questions have wound down, so I will go back to concentrating on other emails regarding Garfield that I need to address.<br />Thanks for this opportunity to answer questions.<br /><br />I have to say, personally, it is frustrating to be the object of so much anger. I am an APP parent for 11 years, with a busy career, family, who works hard to get in the trenches and improve things for APP, ALL of APP, not just my kids. It's very hard to be bashed by a few armchair quarterbacks with what they believe to be 20/20 hindsight.<br /><br />I'd also like to request that you might add some of the comments I've made to the opening page of this blog, not only the cold "summary" written by one blogger--although I do agree with this articulate blogger to some degree. I was asked to do this Q and A, over a very busy weekend, and I think it would be appropriate to put some of my comments on that opening page, not just criticisms of me and our hardworking APP AC. <br />It makes me wonder about the real purpose of this blog, to stir people up who can be snarky behind anonymity, or really provide a constructive dialog, which I DO think is important. The snarky battle tone keeps some people out of this dialog for fear of attack, (and I know this because some have written or spoken to me), and at this point, this experience hasn't particularly encouraged me to continue to blog.<br /><br />Disagreement OK, but where is common civility, particularly if you want to encourage people to participate? People accusing me of lying? C'mon, I'm a parent here too. And I haven't seen most of these folks in the trenches.<br /><br />StephanieStephanie Bowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16064313687961012728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-63799285682039774432010-11-17T06:12:32.162-08:002010-11-17T06:12:32.162-08:00The absence of appropriate instruction is the poin...The absence of appropriate instruction is the point that Helen and OverTheEdge make when they describe math classes. Individual families must do this advocacy. <br /><br />Individuals need to be writing individual messages regarding Garfield's future. Now. Do not wait for a message from your APP AC.<br /><br />There is no reason to settle for Ingraham as an option. If the district wants to build the IB program, they should commit to middle school IB programs at Denny and ANY feeder middle school near Ingraham. Other cities have pre-IB programs. Given that there is no gifted education certification or training required in WA state, at least the middle school teachers would have a curriculum and a target for what the high school preparation would be. RIght now, this city has a great high school called Garfield High School. It historically had a middle school called Washington Middle School that had jazz bands and an orchestra and a math team that won all sorts of 1st place awards in regional competitions. It is a huge mistake for the city to tinker with this pathway.<br /><br /> The district doesn't know how to draw boundaries or create a functional assignment plan. That is the problem to solve first.<br /><br />November 17, 2010 5:59 AMuxolohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01595802010492801183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-23529534138141498562010-11-17T05:59:50.008-08:002010-11-17T05:59:50.008-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.uxolohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01595802010492801183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-73411120429995465812010-11-17T01:43:16.045-08:002010-11-17T01:43:16.045-08:00Sorry, the previous post might be a little confusi...Sorry, the previous post might be a little confusing because I mixed the <i>current</i> 6th grade algebra blockade with the experiences of last year.<br /><br />Long story short: Last year we were told that our kids didn't pass a (new) district test. Even when we presented strong evidence that both the test and process were seriously flawed we were ignored. Several kids left the building for math, but the families never gave up, and eventually MAP and other legitimate data proved we were correct. This year our kids were allowed into Geometry. However, unless things change, we'll have nothing in the building next year.<br /><br />But more important than that, our kids will be the last ones to even get that far. This year they aren't even pretending to have a test or process that would allow any 6th grader to enroll in algebra because they know there will always be eligible kids and they don't want to serve them. This is really just finishing off what was attempted last year, but we have not heard any justification or rationale for this at all. It's bizarre and bewildering.OverTheEdgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-19528391303164908912010-11-16T23:23:31.256-08:002010-11-16T23:23:31.256-08:00I have no idea what the justification is (barring ...<i>I have no idea what the justification is (barring what I can glean from Stephanie's summing-up). I haven't been personally involved, and only heard about the situation recently. OverTheEdge presumably knows what they said.</i><br /><br />Sigh. I was trying to silently move back to the shadows, but I suppose I can pass along a little more of what I know.<br /><br />First, let me say that after dozens of meetings and personal conversations, with building and district staff, not to mention ridiculous amounts of email, I have never heard any justification for blocking 6th graders from Algebra I. Nothing. Nada. Zip. <br /><br />What we get is stuff like this (direct quote): "Students can opt up, but not to Algebra 1, because that course will not be offered to 6th graders.". But no rationale whatsoever.<br /><br />What we did hear several times is "it's too expensive to serve small classes". And we totally understand that. <i>But that doesn't come into play until 8th grade!</i> Not to mention that each and every parent who was involved in last year's fiasco explicitly agreed that we would sign a contract to release the district from any responsibility to provide an 8th grade class for Alg2. Certainly not ideal, and definitely broke the district's split promises, but we were all willing to take our lumps with Alg2 issues later. At least it would be only one year of hassle. (no one in the district seems to understand that it's better to serve kids for 2 out of 3 years than zero out of 3 years)<br /><br />Instead, we were informed one afternoon that all of our kids were being kicked out, down to a lower class (6HH). The kids would be notified the following day and we should have our schedule change requests to turn in that day as well. Less than one day's notice!<br /><br />Interestingly, the signing-off-on-alg2 issues we brought up were addressed perfectly by the new Math Placement Contract. In fact, reading that Contract it felt like the district was actually paying attention to the issues and addressing them! But those thoughts were short lived. Last spring, Ms. de la Fuente (head of SPS math) very clearly and explicitly said that APP kids were allowed to use the Contract. However, by the time this fall rolled around, she had apparently reneged on that as well, blocking all incoming 6th graders from Algebra I again. This time without even pretending to care about test scores or ability.<br /><br />To this day I don't think anyone outside the Stanford Center has any real understanding of the rationale behind this decision. And it's not for lack of trying to understand. If anyone can ever get an answer from staff that makes any sense whatsoever, please, <i>please</i> post it here, because we're all still waiting for a rational explanation.<br /><br />I hope that's enough. The details aren't nearly as important as knowing there are clear, factual cases that show the district most definitely does not keep its promises. All families <b>and Board members</b> should know that before buying into any promises - especially as they might relate to proposed splits.OverTheEdgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-29043539092154323812010-11-16T21:36:48.640-08:002010-11-16T21:36:48.640-08:00Blogger Maureen said...
(...)
I'll tell y...<i>Blogger Maureen said...<br />(...)<br /> I'll tell you what made me post this: I just heard a 2nd hand report of what was said at last night's meeting and it did not reflect well on the basic level of compassion and empathy of the average APP parent.</i><br /><br />Um, Maureen, how many of the 1,300+ APP families were at this meeting that you feel you could gauge what the "basic level of compassion and empathy of the average APP parent" is, and based on secondhand info, no less?<br /><br />I for one was not there last night, so I feel you are insinuating something pretty negative about a whole lot of us, most of whom weren't even there.<br /><br />So, to quote a previous commenter on this thread: <i>Can't you even hear yourself?</i><br /> <br />As for my level of compassion and empathy for all the kids of SPS and advocacy for public education in general, please check out my writing at Seattle Education 2010 and Huffington Post. I am even empathetic to what's been done to TOPS and spoke up at a meeting with Michael DeBell on behalf of TOPS though I've no kids there. (You have or had kids there, don't you? It sounds like a great school, btw.)<br /><br />I also spoke up at the alternative school meeting at TOPS last year or so, in the hopes of helping the alt community learn from and avoid what happened to the APP community in the "APP audit."<br /><br />I also share your belief that kids should be allowed to test into APP at high school as well.<br /><br />I believe that the Garfield overcrowding situation was created by the district, not the APP community, and that one group, be it APP or any other, should not repeatedly be made the sacrificial offering for district-made inequities.<br /><br />I also believe that the fact that one school should be so desirable district-wide is both a testament to the district's ability to do something well, and an indictment of the district for having failed to replicate this success in other schools.<br /><br />I also want to go on record to say that I believe it's unconscionable for the district to spend so much on one school (Garfield, $135 mil or so) while neglecting so many other schools. <br /><br /><i>--Sue Peters</i>suep.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17281578510716234624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-17347733551331612472010-11-16T21:33:28.939-08:002010-11-16T21:33:28.939-08:00First, to Stephanie: in reading over my posts it d...First, to Stephanie: in reading over my posts it does sound like I'm taking some of my frustrations out on you and the committee and that's not fair; I apologize. I was disappointed, at the time of the Lowell split, 'cause I felt as though the committee, and Bob Vaughan to some extent, took a "we're going to get hosed so let's see if we can, at least, minimize the hosing" approach in the early going. And, by the time the battle lines were drawn, we were now fighting over HOW to split the program not WHETHER to split the program. Anyway,the point is, I do appreciate all you guys do for APP but, like everyone else, I'm exhausted at the constant barrage. Which brings me to Maureen . . .<br /><br />Maureen: I don't think I'm special or deserving of anything more than a quality education for my child. That's right, MY child. I advocate for all children in the district, I help fund raise at our local elementary, even though our son doesn't go there anymore, and I try to involve myself in matters that affect the district as a whole. That said, my job is to help my son with whatever he needs to prepare him for higher learning, be it high school or beyond. If he's advanced in math, BECAUSE THE DISTRICT ACCELERATED HIS MATH, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the district to continue his math education. <br /><br />I'm not asking that the district offer anything new, nor am I asking that they not give things to other groups; I'm asking them to keep the promises they made when making the split. Things like equity between programs, NO high school split, written curriculum, qualified teachers, etc. I'm asking the district not to lie and manipulate data just to get their way and, perhaps more importantly, I'm asking them to state their goals BEFORE breaking up a successful program. <br /><br />Lastly, you talk about how, if there's a split, many APP kids will just go to Ballard and Roosevelt and be happy. I think you'd be surprised at how many aren't assigned to those schools. Our son would be assigned to Nathan Hale which, though a fine school for some, doesn't offer the number of advanced classes he needs and doesn't have the advanced music program of Garfield or Roosevelt. Does my son DESERVE special treatment to be in a music program? Yes . . .ALL our children deserve special treatment! But, even though he loves music and practices hard, and dreams of continuing music as gets older, there's a serious possibility he'll be denied space at Garfield and, in the alternative, won't be able to get into Roosevelt because of overcrowding and an extra 5 blocks.<br /><br />I'm truly sorry you can't hear the difference between advocating and whining. As a whole, the APP community is asking for reasonable responses to reasonable requests; we're asking for promises to be kept; we're asking that our children be allowed to continue down a path that this district offers; and we're asking these things in a way that takes nothing away from other programs. <br /><br />stuStuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11769983958729170219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-66982337166367363172010-11-16T18:29:22.749-08:002010-11-16T18:29:22.749-08:00Maureen, not all of us can win the lottery to get ...Maureen, not all of us can win the lottery to get our kids into TOPS, and must therefore rely on other means to get an acceptable education for our kids.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-90069224572306577372010-11-16T16:11:42.866-08:002010-11-16T16:11:42.866-08:00I have no idea what the justification is (barring ...I have no idea what the justification is (barring what I can glean from Stephanie's summing-up). I haven't been personally involved, and only heard about the situation recently. OverTheEdge presumably knows what they said.<br /><br />Helen Schinskehschinskehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10316478950862562594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-59823292782789689402010-11-16T15:56:22.733-08:002010-11-16T15:56:22.733-08:00So, Helen, do you have any idea what the distric...So, Helen, do you have any idea what the district's motivation behind the current situation with math is? Have they ever provided a justification?Birdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16540428343439198125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-38288664087116529862010-11-16T15:29:29.977-08:002010-11-16T15:29:29.977-08:00The problem isn't the numbers so much. There a...The problem isn't the numbers so much. There are ways to work around that. The problem is the administration's attitude. If you don't let anyone take algebra in 6th grade, no one takes algebra in 6th grade, qualified or not. <br /><br />Incidentally, a few years back the district floated a new math plan that would have had algebra 1 be the standard goal for 8th grade, with acceleration for the average Spectrum and APP students (and any others who tested in -- let's not forget that this isn't just a program thing, it would affect ANY student sufficiently advanced in math) amounting to one and two years beyond that. So a while ago three years ahead was about to be signed in as a goal for the *average* APP student, and now it's to be a goal for *none*? I'm getting sick of the whiplash here.<br /><br />For what it's worth, I've always thought a few more students could qualify for math three years ahead than presently do, but not a lot more. It's not that I thought the district's plan was totally realistic, and they may have been right to abandon it. But there's no way the same people could have believed the *philosophy* behind that plan, and then implement the policies they have at Hamilton.<br /><br />Helen Schinskehschinskehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10316478950862562594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-48928571607623225622010-11-16T15:15:49.159-08:002010-11-16T15:15:49.159-08:00Thanks for your comments, Helen and Anonymous, abo...Thanks for your comments, Helen and Anonymous, about the math program. That's very useful context in the current debate. <br /><br />Then I guess the next question is, if APP continues to grow at the two MS sites -- and it sounds like, potentially, split HS sites -- will having more students at each site, such as you describe in math, provide the critical mass for more advanced work? And can that be baked into the planning?Jessicanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-39430104247355028662010-11-16T15:12:25.357-08:002010-11-16T15:12:25.357-08:00More like, "my highly gifted child and some n...More like, "my highly gifted child and some number of his peers needs X - so please keep them together and provide X, instead of scattering them to the wind and forcing us to seek individual solutions for each one."ArchStantonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746480698492983438noreply@blogger.com