tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post7491600362595549755..comments2024-02-28T22:24:07.299-08:00Comments on Community Forum for HCC (APP) in Seattle Schools: APP at Garfield threatened?Andrew Siegelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06830585083467140758noreply@blogger.comBlogger100125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-9142842849689958112010-11-22T23:03:00.438-08:002010-11-22T23:03:00.438-08:00Perhaps, but that still leaves all the other APP k...Perhaps, but that still leaves all the other APP kids who aren't yet at Garfield in limbo. <br /><br /><i>--sp.</i>suep.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17281578510716234624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-63615833200320811942010-11-20T15:36:27.873-08:002010-11-20T15:36:27.873-08:00I noticed that posts have fallen off in the last t...I noticed that posts have fallen off in the last two days and for good reason. Apparently Bob Vaughn and the district have agreed not to displace current Garfield APP students to lower enrollment. It remains unclear whether the district will maintain it's promise to Wasington and Hamilton students that they would get to rejoin each other at Garfield after the program was split apart at the Middle School level. If he school district keeps this promise, it will go along way to restoring the trust and support of parents. In any event I believe we can thank the.efforts of those here and elsewhere who have lobbied the board and especially Stephanie and the APP AC for educating school board members in direct meetings.taddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01378740675855891160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-20099872186070444052010-11-17T21:28:42.927-08:002010-11-17T21:28:42.927-08:00The problems at Rainier Beach are many, some of th...The problems at Rainier Beach are many, some of them are quite well publicized, and that they have been allowed to get as bad as they have is an indicator of how little the district is able to monitor and improve schools. I am surprised that as many kids go there as do. Unless the district takes a lot of action (which is so unlikely it almost feels like lying to call it a possibility) it will be years before anyone nearby has any confidence in Rainier Beach as a viable educational choice. If it were my local reference school, I would probably be interested in any alternative.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-66632899827215187942010-11-17T15:44:49.744-08:002010-11-17T15:44:49.744-08:00Excellent Post Howard. You too Meg. Awe Heck, I ...Excellent Post Howard. You too Meg. Awe Heck, I love all you bloggers.<br /><br />Considering all the options, I think Howard has nailed down the best short term solution, but Meg has really found the smoking gun at RBHS. Those percentages have to change. Whatever the district is doing is not enough. Whatever the community is doing is not enough. Whatever the city is doing, is not enough. RBHS area families deserve a great High School that serves them well. <br /><br />The question is what can we, as a community of activists and bloggers do to help them get what they need and deserve? Does it sound self-serving to focus on RB? So what! I don't care. What I care about is getting all families in that area to feel good about sending their kids to their local school again. How will the NSAP ever work if we don't have great schools available in every neighborhood?<br /><br />Forget about the SE Initiative. If the district can't deliver at RBHS what RBHS's community wants and needs, and will choose to send the kids to be a part of, then the entire 5 year Strategic Plan is a failure and the concept of Excellence for All is bankrupt.wseadawghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08750439461734046035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-55355476776013046332010-11-17T13:55:32.154-08:002010-11-17T13:55:32.154-08:00Howard - I'm with you. I don't want to see...Howard - I'm with you. I don't want to see anyone, particularly the kids currently at Garfield, thrown under the bus.<br /><br />I'm several years off of this affecting my kids, since they're both still in elementary school. I continue to think, particularly after looking at the district's attendance area data, that the boundaries for Garfield were drawn too big. <br /><br />This may be a different topic. I don't know. I think it's very much related. Looking at attendance data for high schools, I noticed that only 17% of HS kids enrolled in SPS and living in the RBHS area are attending RBHS. The NSAP brought a one point uptick - 18% of RBHS-area 9th graders are at the school. It's the lowest capture rate in the district, and the lowest uptick under the NSAP.<br /><br />I do not know enough about RBHS to comment on the school as a whole. But it's clear that families are voting with their feet - there are about 1,000 high school kids (who are enrolled in SPS) in the RBHS area attending high school elsewhere. That puts a gigantic kink in the neighborhood assignment plan, and is a much, much bigger problem than HS APP growing by 80 kids in 5 years. In an area-based assignment plan, kids deserve to get served - and served well - at their local. Clearly Rainier Beach families don't think their kids will be served there.Meghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12795753563127975720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-86347192309266677062010-11-17T12:10:30.907-08:002010-11-17T12:10:30.907-08:00Dealing with angry people is a necessary social sk...<em>Dealing with angry people is a necessary social skill for those who work with the public. Anyone who simply refuses to listen is not doing their job. These are our kids, and our tax money pays for the district's budget. If they waste our money, if they lie to us, if they fail to educate our kids, we will call them on it.</em><br /><br />I stand by this statement, which, like the rest of that post, is meant to apply to the school district, not to APP AC. <br /><br /><em>Anyone can be angry and express that anger, and they do. That approach, I feel, is not productive and does not work.</em><br /><br />I disagree. I think anger can be quite productive if harnessed and used honorably, and I think many people on these threads have done so -- with, on the whole, remarkable restraint and civility, considering the level of disagreement expressed. Moreover, I think that a large percentage of posts have not in fact expressed any direct anger at all, but only an intense probing for the truth -- unsettling, perhaps, but only to be expected in this crowd.<br /><br />Helen Schinskehschinskehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10316478950862562594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-81410710536892031172010-11-17T10:25:11.466-08:002010-11-17T10:25:11.466-08:00Dealing with angry people is a necessary social sk...Dealing with angry people is a necessary social skill for those who work with the public. Anyone who simply refuses to listen is not doing their job. These are our kids, and our tax money pays for the district's budget. If they waste our money, if they lie to us, if they fail to educate our kids, we will call them on it. <br /><br />If you call for every interaction to be in a particular civilized tone, you're also restricting what people can say and silencing what people most desperately want to say. There IS no totally civilized, nicey-nice way to say something like "You told us a lie." There are more and less dignified ways to say it, but no amount of dignity in the accuser is going to sweeten the pill for the accused.<br /><br />Helen Schinske<br />------<br />Helen, everyone on the APP AC is a volunteer, and most are APP parents. We are not responsible for the splits. No one was able to prevent that change, even the angriest and most articulate of Lowell parents. Everyone needs to stop blaming everyone else for that change, including the APP AC.<br /><br />Anyone can be angry and express that anger, and they do. That approach, I feel, is not productive and does not work. In the past, this approach has created more problems for APP. Also, there are lots of things the APP AC addresses, not just the big issues some people get angry about, and we could not do all the other work unless we maintained a respectful tone...you can't advocate for anything if they don't listen.<br /><br />I AM A PARENT of 2 kids in APP, one who is 2e. A parent, like most everyone on this blog. I'm a Texan who lived in New York City for 14 years, even in Bed Stuy Brooklyn when it looked very different from today. I have been a college teacher for nearly 20 years, including 10 years at Parsons in New York with students from all over the world. I started a recycling center in Williamsburg Brooklyn in protest because the city would not provide recycling in our neighborhood. I have a fighting spirit, I can take on conflict better than most. I also believe in group process, because I think the outcome is better when many voices contribute.<br /><br />It is not my JOB to be the object of people's misplaced anger toward the district. People can certainly find a way to express their sentiments without verbally abusing other parents.<br />StephanieStephanie Bowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16064313687961012728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-17986254821697488842010-11-17T10:03:34.613-08:002010-11-17T10:03:34.613-08:00The date for the meeting tonight was scheduled bec...The date for the meeting tonight was scheduled because of conflicts with every other night this week for APP families.<br />District meeting at GHS on Monday,<br />TM ptsa on Tuesday,<br />Garfield ptsa on Thursday,<br />also curriculum night at WMS.<br /><br />The thought was it was better to have the meeting sooner rather than later, and not to have it during a holiday week when many people travel.<br />No conspiracy.<br />StephanieStephanie Bowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16064313687961012728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-60551147373002176482010-11-17T09:59:09.990-08:002010-11-17T09:59:09.990-08:00HI all,
I now see my posts here in this thread, bu...HI all,<br />I now see my posts here in this thread, but I have not placed them here and have not been responding specifically to this thread, I have been responding to the Q and A thread.<br />So I have missed some of the comments until now.<br />StephanieStephanie Bowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16064313687961012728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-39396354344768437402010-11-16T22:51:54.509-08:002010-11-16T22:51:54.509-08:00If the objective is truly to bring Garfield enroll...If the objective is truly to bring Garfield enrollment back close to the building's functional capacity, there is no APP-only solution short of moving APP to Ingraham and/or Rainier Beach while <b>not</b> allowing APP students to return to their attendance area high school. Once you allow APP students the same option as anyone else in the district - to return to their attendance area school - moving APP out of Garfield by force simply shifts the overcrowding problems to Ballard and Roosevelt, where close to 40% of the APP students live. At which point the district will be forced to redraw boundaries.<br /><br />There's no getting around the fact that the district has promised a seat at Garfield to more kids than the building was designed to handle, and therefore all of those kids are equally deserving of a seat. At this point, I concur with what appears to be the prevailing sentiment from last night's meeting; <b>no one</b> - APP or non-APP - should be thrown under the bus. Given the hash the district has made of the NSAP, the most equitable short-term solution is:<br /><br />a) Go ahead and attempt to make IB (at Ingraham and/or Sealth) more attractive to rising APP 9th graders as an <b>additional</b> option. I don't think it will draw large numbers, but it can't hurt. (Though one might argue that the Advanced Learning office's plate is full enough already)<br /><br />b) Temporarily reduce choice seat availability at Garfield<br /><br />c) Make do with what's left, whether it be partially split sessions, use of the community center, or some combination of the two.<br /><br />Of course given overcrowding and the district FUD campaign, APP enrollment at Garfield may decline on its own over the next few years - in which case you can expect, again, more pressure on Ballard and Roosevelt enrollment.Howardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-27937064783612128612010-11-16T20:41:21.960-08:002010-11-16T20:41:21.960-08:00But... if you leave APP intact at Garfield, you ne...<em>But... if you leave APP intact at Garfield, you necessitate the changing of at least 4 other high schools boundary lines.</em><br /><br />Which is exactly why the boundary lines around Garfield should not have been drawn so big -- the district forced this issue, knowing full well it would cause exactly this problem. I think they did it specifically so that parents would fight each other over the results and not all protest the same way. <br /><br />But surely we can all agree on not wanting to be jerked around, and wanting sensible plans to be made well ahead of time, based on reliable data. That's quite independent of whether the APP program (as one example) actually is too big to fit comfortably into Garfield any longer. Whether it is or it isn't, putting everyone into panic mode with artificial overcrowding was dead wrong.<br /><br />Helen Schinskehschinskehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10316478950862562594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-57314736168933005012010-11-16T20:02:01.452-08:002010-11-16T20:02:01.452-08:00And I am not slamming APP parents above - I truly ...And I am not slamming APP parents above - I truly think we all need to work together to stop this - for everyone!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-57044752075957177092010-11-16T20:00:49.123-08:002010-11-16T20:00:49.123-08:00So, I am just wondering. What is the APP communit...So, I am just wondering. What is the APP community suggest doing to help protect other high schools and their cohorts at these meetings? I mean, I totally don't think current GHS students should be sent to another school - that is wrong, wrong wrong. But... if you leave APP intact at Garfield, you necessitate the changing of at least 4 other high schools boundary lines. Meaning kids who expect to go to high school at say, Ballard, Roosevelt or Franklin, no longer can. Instead they are going to be split off from their classmates who they have been with, many since kindergarten, and cast to the winds as well.<br /><br />This is an ugly situation, and I would like to see all parents work together some way to force the district to just stop all this this year, for all our sakes.<br /><br /> Signed - Frustrated and Fed upAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-41825900304403804642010-11-16T19:32:26.243-08:002010-11-16T19:32:26.243-08:00It looks like tomorrow night's school board pu...It looks like tomorrow night's school board public testimony is going to be dominated by the contentious topic of bringing (uncredentialed, yet costly) Teach for America, Inc. recruits to Seattle. (More info on that here: <a href="http://seattleducation2010.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/controversial-teach-for-america-back-on-the-agenda-for-seattles-schools/" rel="nofollow">"Controversial 'Teach for America' Back on the Agenda for Seattle Schools"</a>)<br /><br />We can certainly still show up tomorrow night and protest the proposed APP eviction from Garfield one way or another, with signs or just with sheer numbers of us. <br /><br />And/or, anyone interested in gearing up for a strong showing at the <a href="http://www.seattleschools.org/area/board/schedule.xml" rel="nofollow">next school board meeting on Dec. 8</a> to protest?<br /><br />It's possible that may be too late, so in the meantime, we can write letters to the board, contact the media, etc. whatever it takes. <br /><br />Here's something to keep in mind: Supt. Goodloe-Johnson is making a mess of our district, dismantling or weakening many strong programs and schools -- and not just APP, although she is going after our kids for the third time (as I wrote here: <b><a href="http://seattleducation2010.wordpress.com/2010/11/13/seattle-school-district-reveals-plan-to-evict-its-gifted-kids-from-their-high-school-targeting-this-population-for-the-third-time-in-two-years/" rel="nofollow">"Seattle School District reveals plan to evict its gifted kids from their high school – targeting this population for the third time in two years.")</a></b> <br /><br />But she will likely ditch Seattle in a couple of years for her next well-paid job somewhere and not look back.<br /><br />The rest of us, though, will still be here, living with the mess and damage she's made. <br /><br />Our school board members will also still be here, as members of our community and our elected local representatives. They will need to answer to the community for their votes and support of this superintendent's destructive agenda, which right now includes avoidably overcrowding, and a plan to seriously weaken, what is arguably the strongest public high school in the district. <br /><br />Does the <a href="http://www.seattleschools.org/area/board/index.dxml" rel="nofollow">Seattle School Board</a> truly want to be on record supporting that?<br /><br />Four school board members are up for re-election next year: Maier, Sundquist, Carr and Martin-Morris.<br /><br />Their votes for or against evicting APP from Garfield and messing with the district's strongest high school should be watched very closely and remembered next election season.<br /><br />Three of them voted for the elementary and middle schools splits already.<br /><br />Food for thought.<br /><br /><i>-- sue p.</i>suep.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17281578510716234624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-43370167095683153672010-11-16T17:51:52.712-08:002010-11-16T17:51:52.712-08:00When I said that the APP AC committee was better p...When I said that the APP AC committee was better prepared now, I did not mean to say they were unprepared for the WMS and Lowell splits. Rather, those last minute moves by the School District putting WMS on the chopping block, after starting off with closing Lowell and then splitting Lowell, caught all of us on our heels, including every member of the APP community. Now everybody knows the District's game and their latest move to disrupt the integrity of Garfield is much more obvious.<br /><br />Choice of IB or APP-yes, mandatory split-no!taddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01378740675855891160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-47762907513469163762010-11-16T17:43:10.632-08:002010-11-16T17:43:10.632-08:00The District should listen to what wasn’t said in ...The District should listen to what wasn’t said in last night’s meeting as much as what was said. The development of successful IB alternatives, at Ingraham and Sealth, that could peel off APP Students and Private School Students who choose the IB program, had very little objection. Allowing testing of students at the high school level for advanced programs (right now only elementary and middle school students can test) also is a method for developing the critical mass of high achieving students at different high schools to make these advanced programs succeed throughout the City.<br /><br />A year and a half ago, after the Lowell and last minute split of Washington, I wrote the school board saying that Garfield High School was a district and city asset that the District should avoid splitting at all costs. I said that the integrity of APP at the high school level was "a line in the sand" for parents and no parent at any high school would stand for their kids to be pulled out of their high school. Last night, I heard parents and students agree that a split of APP at the high school level would be the ultimate transgression of the Seattle School District. I hope that those writing the well-reasoned arguments here let their School Board member know in firm, respectful emails and letters, that there are options this time around to relieve the overcrowding at Garfield, without dismantling the successful synergy that APP students and parents bring to a Central District school. That synergy serves all populations. APP parents work with many programs serving all Garfield students, including Read Write, First Time College Students, Drama, Sports and Music. <br /><br />The School District shouldn't disrupt a successful program working to better an inner city school that still needs work. Our work at Garfield is not done. It's no time to cherry pick APP students against their will and scatter them north. The students know that they are getting used this time around.taddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01378740675855891160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-67464671138711136002010-11-16T17:29:35.581-08:002010-11-16T17:29:35.581-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.taddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01378740675855891160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-43016455768861610042010-11-16T17:28:01.229-08:002010-11-16T17:28:01.229-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.taddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01378740675855891160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-66718362138961749202010-11-16T17:26:50.757-08:002010-11-16T17:26:50.757-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.taddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01378740675855891160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-66973547852829336162010-11-16T17:26:07.200-08:002010-11-16T17:26:07.200-08:00For those focusing on capacity issues, this is an ...For those focusing on capacity issues, this is an issue that school districts have had to deal with for years. The District is fully capable of handling increased capacity, by construction of portables, opening of adjacent buildings, staggered schedules, and adjusting enrollment boundary lines, if that's what they wanted.<br />But if what they really desire is to split up APP at the high school level, like they suggested in 2005, or at the elementary and middle school level last year, they simply can hide under the guise of "overcapacity " to force a quick split of the program. There is absolutely no capacity reason that the entire APP population couldn't stay at Garfield, if that is what the district wanted. But they don't. <br /><br />The difference now with the proposal to split Garfield APP (vs. the splits at WMS and Lowell,) is that there are no school closure issues that the District can use as cover, and there would be a much more onerous impact on students who need the rigor of a sufficient number of AP courses at Garfield and have been planning on playing music with Clarence Acox their whole life. It is also much clearer this time that APP kids suffering disruptions at the elementary and middle school level are being totally stepped on by the District. Those APP students are finding their voice and aren't going to stand for being pawns anymore. The APP AC is also better prepared this time and may be able to educate enough boardmembers to implement some immediate fixes to give everybody some breathing room, so the board doesn't allow District staff to do something so stupid and irreversable as forcing APP students out of Garfield. <br /><br />I attended the meeting at Garfield last night and felt inspired by the comments coming from the discussion groups. Clear, well-reasoned points and now the students are coming forth and saying "Don't mess with our lives!". <br /><br />We should listen to those students as they discuss their hopes and dreams and preparation for adulthood, including their well thought out plans of attending Garfield, a rigorous program set in a diversified high school in the Central District. These kids took the tests, played by the District rules, and decided to go to Garfield for a real world experience in a diverse setting. These kids also endured a split at the elementary and middle school levels being told that they would get to attend Garfield High School; now they are being told this may not happen because once again they are pawns in a district scheme to dismantle their successful program, with an agenda that has nothing to do with helping those students get a better education or treating them fairly. <br /><br />APP has long been wrongly viewed as parents pushing their kids when those parents are simply trying to maintain predictability of a successful program and in so doing support the public schools. Now that we hear the middle and high school APP students speak out, we finally get it--- it is the kids who are now pushing themselves for their own educational goals and they have figured out for themselves that the District is working against their interests.<br /> <br />From last night's discussion, it became clear that fixes like staggered scheduling and temporary classrooms will give everybody some breathing room before the district misfires by making a horrendous long term decision like splitting up APP at Garfield. It also became clear that the two mandatory reassignment proposals must be taken off the table because those undeniably would disrupt students' lives.taddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01378740675855891160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-3546070211155433052010-11-16T16:55:17.936-08:002010-11-16T16:55:17.936-08:00Right now the 1-in-1000 children are in APP alongs...<em>Right now the 1-in-1000 children are in APP alongside children who are in the 5-in-100 range.</em><br /><br />The cognitive threshold (about 98th percentile) has not been lowered in many, many years (I think it was indeed higher in the early days of IPP). Nor have the cognitive tests used become any more or less accurate (the CogAT has always been extremely hit-or-miss; the WISC and SB have always been reasonably good at establishing who's above the 98th percentile and fairly rubbish at distinguishing much higher).<br /><br />Sure, they've yanked around the achievement thresholds, and used the WASL in indefensible ways, but you've still gotta have the cognitive scores, no way around that. I think the difference is that more students are testing, partly due to the evisceration of Spectrum and regular programs. <br /><br />Changing the cutoff of an unreliable test is just going to make it even more arbitrary and capricious -- it will lessen the number of those who qualify, but in no way guarantee their quality. That's why Bellevue's Prism program is not really any better suited to highly gifted students than APP is, despite a 144 cutoff (which basically means "get a perfect score, near as you can, or forget it").<br /><br />Helen Schinskehschinskehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10316478950862562594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-6165902668926081112010-11-16T16:32:38.013-08:002010-11-16T16:32:38.013-08:00There is a way to insure that the cohort stays sma...There is a way to insure that the cohort stays small enough to fit in whatever school it is housed in, by controlling the thresholds for entry into APP.<br /><br />The only reason the APP cohort is "growing" is that the entry requirements have been substantially lowered in recent years. The more students that enter the program in the bottom measures, the less likely those at the top of the measures will continue to be served well.<br /><br />Whether people inside of, or outside of APP like it or not, there are only a few children who are 1-in-1000 bucket when given an IQ test, and those children are different then even children who are 1-in-100 bucket.<br /><br />Right now the 1-in-1000 children are in APP alongside children who are in the 5-in-100 range.<br /><br />Change the range, change the size of the cohort, and yes this is what the cohort is all about. <br /><br />Motivated and high achieving children are not necessarily freaks, and can easily fall into ranges in the 30-in-100 range.<br /><br />APP was designed to serve freaks, at the far extreme of the IQ scale and it is currently serving a much wider swath of children, which may not be a bad thing, but is worth noting.<br /><br />No one is beating down the door to join the Special Ed cohort, where children fall into the same buckets at the other end of the bell curve, but trying to join APP when there isn't a qualifying IQ is the same thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-17052953307300558812010-11-16T12:14:45.466-08:002010-11-16T12:14:45.466-08:00"It's not an INHERENT lack of cohort that..."It's not an INHERENT lack of cohort that Dorothy's describing in the Roosevelt examples. She's exposing the Advanced Learning Office hypocrisy in claiming to value cohort for APP (partly because they can provide that without really doing anything else), while systematically pursuing policies that bust up other cohorts."<br /><br />Thanks, Helen. In case anyone was confused, this is exactly what I meant. <br /><br />I agree that it is too bad that rigor comes simply from AP courses, but it's better than nothing. What matters is the self-selecting of more challenge for a higher concentration of kids in the class who are motivated and less likely to misbehave and disrupt. On the other hand, mixing the kids up will spread out the misbehaving kids and the motivated, with the hope/goal that the motivated attitudes will prevail. <br /><br />Even GHS has had this philosophy with their 9th grade LA Honors for all situation. While the APP AC has worked for YEARS to fix this at GHS, the trend in other high schools has been to go further in that direction. IF Vaughan valued highly capable kids having access to their cohort, he would have worked against this policy. <br /><br />So when parents of motivated, advanced kids in other HS are denied a chance to be in classes designed for that cohort so that they can at least find each other, it makes it hard to be completely sympathetic to the APP cries for cohort. It also makes it more likely that more and more students will flock to APP, killing it with popularity. I predicted that with the trend of RHS removing opportunities for its gifted cohort, having HIMS a more convenient APP option for the North End, a higher percent of app eligible kids would join or remain in the program for the Garfield seat. I predicted that would cause the dismantling of APP at GHS because of the size of the group. I did not realize that the remodel made the capacity at GHS smaller. And, that was before they made the attendance area so huge, so the issue has come sooner rather than later. <br /><br />See the <a href="http://www.seattleschools.org/area/implementation/APPDataandCharts.pdf" rel="nofollow">data</a>. 50 kids joined in 6th grade, that's the largest such increase of the years listed. And 22 kids joined just for 8th grade? I'd love to know how these jumps relate to the split. (and of course overall enrollment going up is a factor.)Dorothy Nevillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17108759281089768738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-6840848880772260462010-11-16T09:33:17.756-08:002010-11-16T09:33:17.756-08:00But there's a huge difference between "be...But there's a huge difference between "being outside the APP cohort [leading] to a lack of success for any non-APP student" and "being outside the APP cohort meaning that the advanced learning opportunities open to you are even more subject to being undermined than if you were in APP." It's not an INHERENT lack of cohort that Dorothy's describing in the Roosevelt examples. She's exposing the Advanced Learning Office hypocrisy in claiming to value cohort for APP (partly because they can provide that without really doing anything else), while systematically pursuing policies that bust up other cohorts.<br /><br />Personally, I see the emphasis on creating more and more AP and IB courses as being somewhat misguided. I've never been happy that AP courses were the primary means of providing rigor at Garfield. The only advantage to them is that you can't just stick the name in the catalog and pretend that it's an advanced course, the way you can with "honors" -- there are some outside checks and balances. <br /><br />I will say, however, that I'm perfectly certain there are some students out there who ought to have been in APP and who might well have done better in school if they had been -- especially students of color. But they might not count as "non-APP" in that sense.<br /><br />Helen Schinskehschinskehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10316478950862562594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-72291263760359368042010-11-16T09:03:32.190-08:002010-11-16T09:03:32.190-08:00In all my years as an APP parent I have never hear...<i>In all my years as an APP parent I have never heard anyone claim that being outside the APP cohort led to a lack of success for any non-APP student.</i><br /><br />I agree with everything Dorothy says, so now you have heard it from two people (and note that that was here on the APP Discussion Blog).Maureenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18444916440000921599noreply@blogger.com