Open thread

Discuss what you like!

Upcoming meetings with Superintendent and Board

In the comments to an earlier post, Lori asked:

Is anyone planning to attend one of the Superintendent's coffee chats?

I hope to go to the one at Jane Addams on October 12th. Given that it's at 9AM and many local families will be taking their elementary students to school at that very time, I suspect that meeting will have middle and highschool parents, along with APP parents residing in the NE whose kids take the bus to Lowell. Perhaps it will be a good opportunity to discuss APP-specific concerns.

I may ask if the split last year achieved its desired outcomes and how they are planning for capacity in the future ... I suspect there are going to be capacity issues at Lowell in the very near future.

Seems like a good idea. If APP parents might want to attend any of the Superintendent's coffee chats, here are the dates and places:

Superintendent Coffee Chat Dates

• Central: Thursday, October 7 at SBOC from 6:00 p.m. -7:00 p.m.
  
• Northeast: Tuesday, October 12 at Jane Adams (K-8) from 9:00 a.m. -10:00 a.m.
  
• West Seattle:Monday, October 25 at West Seattle Elementary from 6:00 p.m. –7:00 p.m.
  
• South East: Wednesday, October 27 from 6:00 p.m. -7:00 p.m. at Mercer Middle
  
• Northwest: Tuesday, November 2 at North Beach from 9:00 a.m. -10:00a.m.

Also, Director Kay Smith-Blum announced community meetings:

Kay Smith-Blum, School Board Director for District 5 (Central Area, including Lowell) is having community meetings on Saturday September 25th and November 13th from 10:00 am until 11:30 am at the Douglas-Truth Library (2300 East Yesler Way). These meetings are a good chance to meet with her and voice your concerns about our school district. She would like to connect with as many parents as possible.

APP parents, are there other events with other school board members that you plan on attending to ask questions?

Update: Melissa Westbrook mentions an upcoming meeting with Director Maier:

Director Maier is having a morning meeting on Wednesday the 22nd from 10-11:30 a.m. at the Lake City Public Library, 12501 28th NE.

She also notes that these meetings appear sparsely attended, only three parents at Harium's recent one. APP parents that attend future meetings almost certainly would have a chance to ask questions.

Update: Charlie Mas posted a list of many upcoming meetings, including these with Directors Patu and Sunquist:

Saturday, September 25 at 10:00-noon
Director Patu Community Meeting at Tully's Coffee @ Rainier / Genesee

Wednesday, September 29 at 11:30am-12:30pm
Director Sundquist Community Meeting at Delridge Library

Update: Steve notes in the comments that Director Kay Smith-Blum "encouraged everyone to come to the Community Meeting she is hosting at Douglas Truth Library on Sat. Sept 25 from 10:00 to 11:30 Capacity issues at both Lowell and Garfield will be topics for discussion."

Update: Melissa reports that superintendent is taking questions at the regional meetings. Here is a list of the next regional meetings

Central: September 22 at Bailey Gatzert Elementary School
Northwest: September 23 at Hamilton Middle School
Southeast: September 28 at Aki MS
West: September 30 at Chief Sealth High School

if you might want to attend.

APP discussion on Seattle Public Schools Community blog

Charlie Mas posted an "APP Thread" over at the Seattle Public Schools Community blog.

Update: There is also a lot of discussion of the future of APP at the high school level at Garfield in the comments for another recent post on that blog, which I have summarized for convenience.

First day of school and topics for this blog

The first day of school is today! It is a good time to gather topics for this blog for the new school year. What would you like to talk about here on this blog in the next few months?

Perhaps another Q&A for new parents to ask questions of existing parents?

Anyone still interested in discussing the APP split (Lowell/Thurgood Marshall and Hamilton/Washington) and its aftermath?

More discussion of any additional splits that should or should not happen? Perhaps more discussion of the future of APP at the high school level as well?

Maybe compare Seattle APP to the expanding PRISM and GHSP programs in Bellevue? What is good and not so good?

Whether we need an advocacy group for APP? What parents are doing to supplement math (and whether we should be supplementing math)? Transportation issues? Other topics?

Please chime in on the comments to this post with what topics you might like. I will do my best to start threads on them over the coming months as well as covering any APP-related news that comes up over the year.

Another open thread

The new school year is coming up fast! New APP parents, do you have questions for old APP parents? And, old APP parents, what's on your mind?

Open thread

Summertime! What are you and your APP kids doing this summer? And what is on your mind going into September?

End of another school year

It is the last day of school tomorrow. Another school year done, a summer ahead of us, and planning for the year to follow.

If you have thoughts on this year and the year to come, please discuss!

Board work session on Advanced Learning June 16

The Seattle Public Schools Community Blog reports that "on Wednesday, June 16, from 4:00pm to 5:30pm, will be a Board Work Session on Advanced Learning." The School Board calendar is here.

Opening a new thread to discuss that if anyone wants to organize people who want to attend, talk about what should be addressed in that meeting, or follow up afterward with a summary of what happened.

Open thread

Discuss what you like!

APP broken promises

Lifting this from the comments, Charlie Mas writes:

This year was the first year of the split elementary and middle school programs.

The program splits came with risks. The District made specific promises about how they would address some of those risks.

They promised an aligned, written, taught and tested curriculum that would be fully implemented on the first day of school in fall 2009. They did not fulfill that promise.

They promised that the elementary programs would be comparable in size. The program at Lowell is nearly 50% bigger than the program at Thurgood Marshall. They did not fulfill that promise.

They promised that they would take steps to avoid a repeat of the problems experienced at Madrona when APP was co-housed with a general education program population that was academically and demographically different from APP's population. It's unclear if any of those steps were taken or if they were successful.

It is worth noting that co-housing part of elementary APP with general education students at Thurgood Marshall was specifically recommended AGAINST by the APP Review. The District did it anyway. At one time a response to the APP Review was a project of the Strategic Plan. It appears to have been dropped from the Strategic Plan and there has been no response to the APP Review. That's another promise that wasn't kept.

So where's the accountability?

If the district isn't going to apply any accountability, then what is the appropriate response from the community?

APP parents? What do you think?

Update: Charlie adds more in the comments, ending with, "We are a smart, effective, creative group of well-respected people with deep networks throughout the city ... When the APP AC stops acting like a doormat they will realize their power."

Update: Charlie writes again with specific ideas on what actions the APP AC and APP parents could take. Well worth reading.

APP Advisory Committee asks for feedback

The APP Advisory Committee is asking for feedback on the year. Feel free to put comments on this post about your feedback, but they are asking for your feedback to be sent directly to them by e-mail.

A copy of their message is below (slightly edited for formatting and clarity):

As we get close to the end of this school year and start to think about writing our committee's final report to the district, we would like to hear your thoughts about how things are going.

Please drop us an email and consider the following:

• Are things different now than they were at the beginning of the year?
• What's working, what's good?
• What's not working, what needs addressing?
• What are your concerns for next year?
• How can our committee do what we do better?
• What was most helpful/important to you that the APP AC did this year?
  (e.g. hold monthly meetings, send monthly meeting minutes, send email updates, host middle school transition meeting, send out school announcements like tour dates/etc., forward emails from other groups/gifted ed/legislative info, support 2E meetings, respond to individual email questions, advocate behind the scenes on issues, work with district/building staff, generally keep the community informed?)

All communications will be kept confidential within the committee [and] will inform the issues we write about this year and address for next year. Thanks for your time and support.

Send your email to all or your school rep listed below [and] mention [which schools] your kids attend:

Chair, Stephanie Bower, stbower@comcast.net
Secretary, Ann Owens, ann@owensavage.com
Diversity Rep, Roberto Jourdan, Ahero@rocketmail.com
At-large Rep, Val Morris-Lent, valmorrislent@gmail.com
Communications Rep, Robert Njegovan, robertnappac@gmail.com
Lowell Parent Rep, Geeta Teredesai, geetaat@comcast.net
Lowell Staff Rep, Theresa Roth, trroth@seattleschools.org
Thurgood Marshall Parent Rep, Rachel Miller, rmiller_seattle@hotmail.com
Thurgood Marshall Staff Rep, Cathy Villanueva, cavillanueva@seattleschools.org
Washington Parent Rep, Shannon Wheeler, shannonw@msn.com
Washington Staff Rep, Amy Hallet Noji, aahallett@seattleschools.org
Hamilton Parent Rep, Kathy Tanaka, kathy.tanaka@att.net
Hamilton Staff Rep, Marcelyn Shadow, mhshadow@seattleschools.org
Garfield Parent Rep, Hildy Ko, hko@kcts9.org
Garfield Staff Rep, Ken Courtney, kcourtney@seattleschools.org

Open thread

What's on your mind, APP parents?

APP enrollment next year

The district has posted an update to the projected enrollment next year, "Initial Analysis of Open Enrollment Data - Draft".

On APP specifically, Charlie Mas notes:

I'm having trouble reading the numbers for Washington because they appear to report that some APP students are waitlisted. I don't get that.

There are 223 APP students assigned to Thurgood Marshall and 371 assigned to Lowell. That is NOT an equitable split.

Shannon asks if "the waitlisted APP kids at Washington [are] those assigned to Hamilton who hope to go to Washington instead." Later, Lori looks at the Lowell/TM numbers and writes:

They budgeted for 40 kids in 2nd grade APP at Lowell and assigned 75. That's almost twice as many! Grade 3 is somewhat similar (budgeted 58; assigned 83).

Did the district forget about the large cohort of kids born in 2002-2003 who required the creation of multiple new K classes in North Seattle 2 years ago? Since 2nd and 3rd grade are common entry points for APP, it seems that they should have been able to anticipate somewhat larger enrollment to APP for the upcoming year.

Another problem is the first grade APP enrollment. Estimated APP 1st graders at Lowell is 38; at Thurgood Marshall it is just 12.

The numbers may suggest that the newly split APP schools -- Hamilton and Thurgood Marshall -- are having trouble attracting and retaining APP families. Is that the case? Why? Do you know families who moved just to switch APP schools or who left APP rather than attend those schools? What were their reasons? And what could be done to improve the situation?

Open thread

Please discuss whatever you like!

Update: In the comments, Squeagle gives a useful summary of a Thurgood Marshall meeting today with Principal Julie Breidenbach. Worth reading.

Goodloe-Johnson at Thurgood Marshall PTSA meeting on April 29

Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson will be at the Thurgood Marshall April PTSA General Meeting tomorrow. From the announcement:

Superintendent of Seattle Schools to address next PTSA General Meeting
Thursday, April 29 6:30–8pm in the cafeteria

Join us for our April PTSA General Meeting and a chance to hear from the Dr. Maria Goodloe-Johnson, Superintendent, and Robert Vaughan, Director of Advanced Learning, as they speak and answer questions about the school district's plans for our APP and ALO programs. Here is our opportunity to ask the tough questions about their vision for the future success of our school.

If you attend, please comment on this post to let others know your thoughts on the meeting and if there is any new information about the school district's plans for APP.

Update: Ben writes:

Here's what I got out of the meeting:

* Budget crisis? What budget crisis? Besides money isn't everything. Besides, ALO kids will benefit from being in a "less-dense poverty" situation. (So...just by being near "rich" kids, they'll do better?)

* The curriculum? Science instruction is already the same in Lowell and TM. Math instruction is already the same. Teachers are meeting to work on Language Arts stuff.

Other thoughts on the meeting? Was any new information given about the "district's plans for our APP and ALO programs"?

Update: Two more comments ([1] [2]) with details on the meeting. Worth reading.

Kay Smith-Blum at Lowell and TM

Seattle School Board member Kay Smith-Blum met with parents at Lowell on April 5 and Thurgood Marshall on April 6. By request, here is a thread to discuss those meetings.

Lendlees offered a summary of the Lowell meeting in an early thread:

I was there this morning. KSB is a breath of fresh air. She was very forthright and blunt about the issues that are going on and the extent of her influence with the existing board.

She took copious notes about the issues we raised and is planning to bring them to her one on one with the Superintendent this week.

The issues we raised were:

1. Lowell and TM should not be treated like other schools. We have unique programs that require special staffing not accounted for in the existing WSS formula. (example: you can't have .4 of a teacher)
2. There is no curriculum for APP yet.
3. We have very large class sizes (29 in 3rd/5th grade)
4. We have a large number of split grades.
5. Everyday Math is a terrible curriculum for APP and cannot be taught in a split class setting.
6. Why are we getting penalized about lack of stimulus money this year when we didn't benefit from it last year.
7. Just because Lowell looks 'successful' on the outside doesn't mean there aren't inherent issues that need extra support.

Kay is very much an advocate since her sons went through APP as well.

Can others who were there please comment on and summarize the meetings?

Open thread

Discuss what you like!

Advisory Committee warns of threat to APP

An announcement of a recent APP Advisory Committee meeting on April 6 included this warning:

Seattle Public Schools is facing significant cuts in funding for all its schools ... We hope to discuss the status of proposed changes and how they might impact ... schools where APP is offered, and the program itself.

Stu commented ([1] [2]):

I've gotten more paranoid over this past year but I found the above sentence ... kind of disturbing. It almost implies that they're planning on moving/changing the APP schools . . . and the program.

Unfortunately, I believe the commitment to advanced learning really ends with ALO. This administration wants ALO in every school, possibly some Spectrum programs in each "cluster," but will look to end APP in the near future. Based on everything they've been doing, I don't see how APP fits in their plans. It takes the "smart" kids out of the neighborhood schools, where their scores would help curve things up a bit, and adds to the overall transportation costs. With APP gone, they get to cut transportation, staffing, buildings . . a whole lot of things.

Splitting the program, and ignoring the history of divided buildings, was the first step . . . I'd love to see it last but, on a personal level, don't believe our current 5th grader will ever get to Garfield.

SoundEndScribe later summarized the meeting, including saying this:

It wasn't long ... [until] the question of continued commitment to the APP program in particular was raised ... Bob Vaughn tried to reassure the parents that indeed there was a long-standing (30+yrs) and long-term commitment to advanced learning. He stopped short of saying that there was a long-term commitment to APP in its current form. He didn't say that change was imminent or inevitable but he also didn't say that it wasn't.

It sounds like this AC meeting was not discussing advocating for APP, so let's open a thread on that here. Is there anything parents can do?

Open thread

Please use this thread not only to discuss APP-related issues on your mind, but also to suggest ideas for new posts you might like to see put up for discussion here on this blog.

Funding issues hitting home

On request, here is a new thread for discussing the funding shortfalls for next year.

To take one example, the PTA at Lowell Elementary just sent out a message saying that the school needs to choose between only one of a half-time counselor, increasing the librarian from half to full-time, and a half-time math coach. Class sizes also will increase, a reading coach will be lost, and there are no funds to pay for playground monitors. Most of this is due to district funding cuts, but part is also due to donations from parents being lower than the PTA expected.

I have heard that Thurgood Marshall faces similar funding issues, though perhaps even more severe due to loss of Title I funds and even lower PTA donations. Does anyone know the details?

Update: On the situation at Thurgood Marshall, in the comments, Meg Diaz writes:

Thurgood Marshall is getting eviscerated. The ALO program will take the worst of it.

The ALO program is somewhere over 85% FRL. The influx of the APP program has reduced the "school" FRL to 44% ... A school needs to be above 55% FRL to receive Title money ... Thurgood Marshall will lose nearly $200K in Title money ... Pull-outs for math and reading? Over. FRL population receiving tutoring from tutoring companies that are paid with title money? Over. Bussing for before-school programs for kids qualified for FRL? Gone. A classroom teacher? Buh-bye.

Last year during the closure process, multiple APP parents posited to the board that moving APP into the Thurgood Marshall building would put the kids already in the building at risk, because it would very likely cause the school to lose massive amounts of funding and resources that those children really, really needed, simply because the FRL % for the building would be changed. The board insisted that this would not be the case, that they would look after these kids and that, in fact, having APP in the building could benefit them. Diversity! Enrichment! Access and equity! Unicorns and rainbows!

Just as predicted, the neediest kids in the building have lost huge amounts of resources because of the influx of a program with very different demographics into the building.

Update: There is now a discussion of the situation at Thurgood Marshall over on Seattle Public Schools Community Blog.

Update: Meg adds:

[This] is entirely due to a decision the board made, which was actively questioned by parents (and the change in FRL and its effects on the ALO program was an issue that was raised). The board and staffers insisted that the kids in the ALO program would not suffer as a result of placing APP in the building. And it's just not the case.

Update: There is now a second discussion on this over at the Seattle Public Schools Community Blog.

The APP split: Six months later

It is now six months into the first year of the APP split.

It is now six months into first year Lowell elementary APP has been split into two smaller programs at Lowell and Thurgood Marshall. It is now six months into the first year Washington middle school APP has been split into two smaller programs at Washington and Hamilton.

How is it going? Are things going as you expected? Are there things that you did not expect? What do you think of our first year of the APP split?

Update: Not a lot of comments on this topic so far. Summarizing what we have, comments are that the APP split is going well, people and kids are happy, and everything is mostly as expected. That differs from comments in earlier threads (e.g. [1] [2] [3]). Is this because different people commented in this thread or because parents who were concerned earlier have, in the last few months, changed their mind?

No response to the APP Review?

Over on the Seattle Public Schools community blog, Charlie Mas writes:

There has been no response [from the District] to the APP Review [PDF], done about two years ago.

When will we see a response? When will we even see any news about the efforts to make a response?

An aligned, written, taught and tested APP curriculum was supposed to have been implemented concurrent with the splits in the program. The legitimacy of the splits was predicated on the implementation of this curriculum, but there is none.

Where is the APP curriculum? When will it be implemented? How will it be enforced? Who will enforce it?

Thoughts?

Update: In the comments, Charlie Mas adds that because "the curriculum, which was promised and promised and promised, has yet to appear" that "it is time for APP families to advise the District that their children will not be participating in the WASL this year - nor any year until the APP curriculum has been implemented." That seems sure to generate a lively discussion. What do APP parents think of that?

Open thread

Discuss whatever you like!

Update: There are a bunch of topics in this thread, but this recent comment by ArchStation seems particularly likely to generate sparks. Let me highlight the key bit:

We know of other families leaving APP because they are dissatisfied with the math curriculum and perceived instability of APP and SPS ... [I] think that there might be room for another gifted private or co-op school in Seattle.

Who would really be interested in leaving the APP program for an alternative gifted school? Is there enough of a critical mass to make this a viable option? What model would appeal to you: a small homeschool co-op, a new private school for gifted kids, something in between, or some other model I haven't mentioned?

Q&A for new APP parents

With the APP eligibility e-mails out, parents new to APP are full of questions. For example, in the earlier open thread, one parent asked:

We got our letter on Friday with good news (qualified for APP). My daughter is a 7th grader right now, so if we chose to join the program, she will move to WMS in the fall for her last year of MS. I would appreciate any comments/suggestions how to handle such a "late" transition to the program. She is very strong at math (homeschooled after school using Singapore math books) and theoretically she would be ready for Algebra II in the fall. However, I heard that they do not offer it anymore in WMS. How do they place the newly coming kids into the appropriate math level: testing in September? Also, what languages are they offering in WMS?

Another wrote:

I am new to this site as my daughter just qualified for middle school APP (Hamilton). We didn't expect it, really, but want to explore this option fully.

So can any Hamilton parents tell us what they think? We are especially concerned about math and science as we have a girl who is good in both. I heard science is a weak link. Thanks!

In addition to those questions, let's do a general Q&A here. New APP parents, please post questions as comments on this thread. Existing APP parents, please chime in to help answer them.

Update: Please also use this thread for questions about appealing APP eligibility. There are already a few questions about that in the comments.

Court cases on state funding and Discovery Math

Charlie Mas writes in the comments to an earlier thread:

Two important court cases decided today.

1. Court rules that the state is NOT fulfilling its constitutional duty to fully fund education.

2. Court finds that Seattle Public schools choice of high school math textbooks was capricious and arbitrary and directs to Board to reconsider the adoption.

More details and good discussions going on the posts ([1] [2]) over at the Seattle Public Schools Community Blog.

Please see also our earlier thread, "Gregoire's budget cuts APP".

Update: Five weeks later, Cliff Mass -- UW professor, well-known weather blogger, and a plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging the math textbooks -- writes, "Seattle, Bellevue, and Issaquah: School Districts Versus Good Math Education".

Open thread

What's on your mind, APP parents?

Update: There appear to be two main topics in the comments. The first is MAP test scores, when we will see them, and what they mean. The second is new parents wanting to know if people are getting their APP eligibility results and asking for advice on appealing.

APP class size

Going back to the original list of topics APP parents wanted to discuss, I would like to open a thread on class sizes in APP.

Class sizes at some APP schools appear to be quite high. For example, one parent noted:

My son is at Lowell, 3rd grade. There are 29 children in his class which is a big group for one teacher at that level.

More generally, please comment with your experience and thoughts on whether class sizes in APP are unusually large, whether class sizes are a serious issue for attracting potential APP students, the impact you see of class size on learning in the classrooms, and what might be able to be done to improve the situation both immediately and for next year.

Update: Six months later, it sounds like the APP class size problem is expected to be even more severe in our next school year. In the APP Advisory Committee notes from June 1, 2010, the committee wrote:

Classroom sizes are expected to increase and teachers still have to work with new APP students who often have gaps that need to be addressed. With larger classes and a wider range of student abilities and academic backgrounds, it is very hard for teachers to meet all individual student needs. Families can help by volunteering in the classroom and by working with their own students to address specific issues/gaps.

Open thread

Discuss whatever you like!

Update: Some good discussion already in the comments, including one parent who is considering APP who wants "to hear from current families in the APP program about what tipped the scales for them to move their child from a neighborhood school into APP." Please chime in.

Only 2-3 weeks for APP eligibility appeals?

A parent alerted me of an issue for new children wanting to enter APP of very tight deadlines for APP eligibility appeals.

According to the "Appeal Process for 2009 - 2010 Testing Cycle", the "test scores and eligibility results will be mailed on or around January 29, 2010". But, according to that same page, if you want to re-test and appeal the eligibility decision, you must do that by "mid- to late- February."

This means parents have an extremely short window, only 2-3 weeks, to have a child re-tested and prepare their appeal. This window is so short that most places that can do that kind of testing (Woodcock-Johnson and WISC-IV) in Seattle may have no appointments available in the time parents have before the February appeal deadline.

The advice going around seems to be that, if you were not invited to the second round of district testing, then you can be sure you will get a negative result in the eligibility letter when it arrives. If you might want to appeal, do not wait for the letter to arrive, but book your appointment for private testing now.

Apparently, a similar situation happened in past years. This very tight APP appeal deadline seems inherently unfair if a mistake in testing has been made, likely to exclude otherwise eligible children, and particularly likely to exclude children of parents with limited resources and time. Please discuss it further here in this thread.

Update: A good discussion in the comments, not only on APP eligibility appeals, but also on other topics that might be helpful to people considering elementary APP next year.

Update: One parent, going through the APP eligibility process this year, writes:

We are still waiting on our letter! It just occurred to me that appeals are due 2/24, and as of Friday 2/5, we still don't have information. If we want to appeal and get a letter from our current teacher, we will have to get that from her ASAP because of mid-winter break coming up. This process is ridiculous!

Another open thread

Happy New Year! Discuss whatever you like!

A couple recent events that might be particularly good to talk about are reactions to last night's APP AC meeting (which covered "Governor's proposed budget cuts and impact on Advanced Learning, MAP testing, APP curriculum") from anyone who attended and Cliff Mass' recent rant on math education in Seattle Public Schools ("The Seattle Public Schools, has poor discovery math books at all levels; the Seattle School Board voted in the Discovering Math series last spring (4-3 vote), even though the State Board of Education found it 'unsound.' ... If your child is in this district you have a real problem").

Update: People have been sharing links to resources that might be useful to APP parents in the comments.

Open thread

Discuss whatever you like!

Update: If there is nothing else to talk about, please feel free to use this thread to discuss the new transition plan and how it impacts APP. Slides are available (PDF) from the SPS presentation, with APP changes starting on slide 21.

Update: Also, the APP AC published a Q&A (PDF) today. Hat tip, hschinske, who already has started a discussion on it in the comments.

Gregoire's budget cuts APP

Publicola reports that Governor Chris Gregoire's proposed budget suspends gifted education:

Here's what she says is gone even with the estimated $700 million in new taxes:
...
Suspend the state program for gifted education, which affects nearly 23,000 students. ($7.4 million)

If you want to see this more directly, Gov. Gregoire's budget page discusses the budget and links to the 2010 Budget Highlights. The APP cuts are described very briefly in the education (PDF) section.

Please use this thread to discuss, commiserate, organize, and despair.

Please see also the recent post, "Governor's Cutting Everywhere", on the Seattle Public Schools discussion blog (hat tip, ArchStanton).

Update: Good discussion of what the cuts are likely to impact in the comments.

Update: The APP Advisory Committee urges parents to write the Governor with a short message saying, "Do not suspend highly capable program funding in the Supplemental Budget."

Update: A week later, on the budget of Seattle Public Schools specifically, Melissa Westbrook writes, "We are headed for a huge budget crisis of proportions ... Entire programs may be cut ... You, yes YOU, must go to your PTA and your principal and have the school's budget on the agenda in January."

How do to an elementary APP in the north?

A while back, there were multiple requests to open a discussion on opening an APP elementary school in the north end. Let's do that now.

Some questions to discuss here might include:

• Where should a northern elementary APP program be located?
• Should the program be in addition to or in place of Lowell or Thurgood Marshall?
• When should this happen?
• Would parents prefer APP elementary options closer to them in the city (one in each of north, central, and south) or a larger, unified elementary APP program at one location (as Lowell used to be)?
• Similarly, do parents prefer entire schools to be dedicated to an alternative program like APP? Or do parents prefer an alternative program to be side-by-side and integrated with other alternative programs or with general education?
• If APP is split further, does that have implications for the APP community and the future of APP?

Please see also the comments and discussion on a Sept 2009 post, "Move North-end Elementary APP?", on the Seattle Public Schools community blog.

Open thread

Discuss whatever you like! Also, if you attended the APP Advisory Committee meeting last night and have any reactions, I am sure others would be interested in hearing about it.

MAP testing

After multiple requests ([1] [2] [3]), here is a thread to discuss MAP testing in APP.

Related to this, ArchStanton posted a few references to documents that might be helpful for parents who want to convert the MAP scores to grade levels or to use the MAP scores to help find appropriate books.

Please see also a recent, broader discussion of MAP testing, "MAP (Measures of Academic Progress)", on the Seattle Public Schools community blog.

Do you want a new APP Advocacy group?

In the comments to an earlier post, a few parents were interested in much more APP and advanced learning advocacy, saying they wanted a group that promotes the programs, improves participation in the programs, and helps parents and the district better understand the value of these programs for Seattle Public Schools.

Let's open a discussion on this. How would the mission of this group differ from the APP Advisory Committee? How would you like to see it structured? Who would want to be a part of the group? What specifically should the group start with to have the highest impact in their advocacy?

If you have any thoughts on advanced learning advocacy, want to see more of it, and are interested in helping, please add a comment here. If there is a critical mass of people willing to make it happen, perhaps this is the place to find each other.

Open thread

Discuss what you like!

Update: On request, let's make this both an open thread and a spot for talking about parent's reaction to teacher conferences (for those classes that had them this week).

What do parents want in APP leadership?

There are some comments on the previous post that could be lifted and turned into a broader discussion on what parents want in APP leadership.

One parent complained:

Why doesn't [Bob Vaughan] return parents' phone calls or e-mails? (For that matter, why have I gotten a "voicemail full" response on several different occasions when trying to leave a message for him?) And why, to offer one more example, does he allow his office to run the APP testing process in such an unresponsive and frustrating manner?

I know that the APP AC members like to run their meetings as "We love Bob Vaughan" pep rallies, and I have heard some parents argue that no one should expect much from a person expected to do so many jobs at once. But ... I see a well-meaning but overworked and timid bureaucrat who seems afraid to make waves with district colleagues, school boards members, administrators, and even teachers.

So while he's busy avoiding conflict (and parents), APP suffers. Do ... [we have] an effective advocate for our kids?

Another followed with:

[Bob] doesn't have the staff to do what needs to get done and therefore chooses to do what seems fun, more like pet projects, like spending all this time on middle school app science, when what was promised (and needed, has been needed for eons) is a comprehensive elementary school APP curriculum ... [and] quality Spectrum programming throughout the district.

His department is so underfunded. Why? Given all the bloat and growth in central administration, why didn't the HC office get any of the pie?

Frustrations with specific people aside, let's talk about the broader issue here. What do parents want in APP leadership? Ideally, what should APP leadership be doing?

Update: In the comments, Charlie Mas and ArchStanton suggest APP would be better served if the APP Advisory Committee was focused on advocacy. If the APP AC will not advocate for APP and advanced learning, ArchStanton proposes that parents create a new group for advanced learning advocacy. Thoughts?

Is there support from the CAO for high school APP?

There appears to be some uncertainty about the support from the Chief Academic Officer for Seattle Public Schools, Susan Enfield, for APP at Garfield. In the comments, Charlie Mas wrote:

[In the] November 3, 2009 Board work session on attendance area boundaries... Director [and former Garfield principal] Chow said that she didn't think that APP students should have their guaranteed access to Garfield because, in her words, "there's no program" for them there.

Susan Enfield responded to Director Chow by saying that they couldn't end the APP assignment to Garfield until all of the high schools offered a minimum set of AP (or IB) classes. She assured Director Chow that she was working hard to get those classes into the other schools. Her perspective was clear. She agreed that there was no program and she was working to get it dissolved by building up the advanced learning opportunities in the other attendance area schools.

Director Carr ended the conversation by cheerfully saying that as the other high schools developed more AP and IB classes, the APP students will just naturally choose their attendance area schools over the questionable program at Garfield. The sense here was that there was no need for the district to take any action to end the preferential enrollment to Garfield for APP students since it will soon melt away.

[Later] as Ms Enfield came by I asked her. "Why didn't you correct Director Chow when she said that there is no program for APP students at Garfield?" She responded "Really? Which classes are the APP classes?"

We had a VERY brief exchange in which she made it very clear that she did not believe that there is any such thing as high school APP.

The APP Update e-mail recently sent by the APP Advisory Committee promises more information on this soon, saying:

APP high school assignment to Garfield will remain! Despite recent comments by outgoing School Board member Cheryl Chow, yes, APP *is offered* in high school--at Garfield -- and the APP cohort will continue to be assigned there. Dr. Vaughan has addressed the erroneous public statements and, after conferring with CAO Enfield, will very soon provide a statement to clarify how the program is offered at Garfield.

Be reassured that the CAO supports the program, supports the model, supports the work of the Advanced Learning office, and supports the cohort at Garfield.

Parents obviously are concerned. pjmanley, for example, wrote:

What is this all about? Has anyone else heard this? Is this the brilliant plan for the future of APP? This would be a death sentence for the elementary and middle school programs. Who would send their children away from the neighborhood, severing and weakening all those relationships, to be in APP for a few years, then be tossed back to the same neighborhood? Can anyone tell me why any parent would do that?

If this is in any way true, we need a summit with the CAO and Superintendant right away. We bought in for the long haul and made all the difficult decisions and trade-offs in exchange for the guarantee of a Garfield diploma. If they are going to yank the rug out from under us, I will be furious.

Anyone else have anything to share on the subject?

And ArchStanton depressingly writes:

[This] reinforces my sense that the powers-that-be are willing to let/help the APP program die a slow death. At this point, we're hoping the program will cover us through middle school (or maybe even just elementary) when more private options might be available.

Between the split, Everyday Math, and an obvious lack of support from the district; we feel that this is not the same program we toured and were excited about two years ago. We feel dissatisfied.

Our lack of confidence is such that, once again, we are exploring (and applying to) different options - private schools, back to the neighborhood, homeschool - to see if there might be a solution that we can feel good about.

I'm not threatening to leave APP, 'cuz I don't believe anyone will care if we do - just sharing where we're at.

On a related note, PTSA VP Stephanie Barnett has a meeting with CAO Susan Enfield today. She has promised to report back on what she finds out.

Update: Stephanie Barnett reported back on her meeting with the CAO in the comments, saying, "There is support for the APP program and all of the advanced learning programs."

Update: In the comments, Charlie Mas disagrees:

She can SAY that she supports the programs but let's see her DO something in support of the programs.

Stephanie was lied to. We have all been lied to. They do NOT support the program. CAO Enfield in particular does NOT support the program. If she did, we would have the curriculum. If she did, the staffing in advanced learning would not have been cut. If she did, we would have a meaningful assurance of quality in Spectrum and ALO. If she did, we would have more than three ALO's south of downtown - there aren't any at all in West Seattle.

[CAO Enfield] can SAY that she supports advanced learning, but where is there any evidence of that support?

Another open thread

Replacing the hijacked converted open thread with a new one. Discuss whatever you like!

Open thread

Talk about whatever you like!

Update: In the comments, an anonymous parent writes:

Sometimes, I really wish APP parents wouldn't live up to their awful stereotypes of caring only about APP and being entirely obnoxious about it.

I wish people would take the time to breathe and consider that there are more things going on in the District than just their own kids.

That seems likely to generate a lively discussion. Let's make this thread about that. I'll post another open thread in a couple days to bring up other topics.

Advisory Committee meeting notes

As ArchStanton noted, the official meeting notes from the November 3 APP Advisory Committee meeting are now available. You can get to them in the APP AC Seattle Google group. To make it easier to access, I made a copy available (PDF).

Some excerpts from the meeting notes:

The top concern was student safety and staff response. There was a lengthy discussion in which parents brought up examples of unsafe behavior at Thurgood Marshall, mostly during recess. Several parents voiced concerns that not enough was being done to control students' unsafe behavior.

Julie Breidenbach provided a number of comments to address the concerns. She emphasized that in order to institute a discipline program it is important to develop relationships with the students and to get their buy in. Adults have to understand what is driving the students' behavior. She noted that trust in those in positions of authority needs to be established. Some students are too rough on the playground and staff has frequently had to work with them to modify their behavior. The key is to help kids find alternate behavior that fulfills their need so that the discipline can be a learning experience. This takes time to put into place.

In the meantime, other practices have been initiated to help students deal with the changes. The library has been made available to kids during recess. So kids who don't feel safe on the playground have an alternative. Attendance in the library has decreased which suggests that more kids are feeling comfortable going out to the playground during recess. More adults have been assigned to recess duty.

[The] final topic [was] concerns about equity and/or disparity in the two APP elementary programs. Parents who were specifically interested in this topic also interpreted it in different ways. One view was that the extra effort and attention required to address issues of safety and discipline at Thurgood Marshall would detract from the academics there. Another parent voiced concerns about the very large second grade classes at Lowell as compared to the classes at Thurgood Marshall. Gregory King replied that he is trying to remediate the large class sizes by using tutors in the overloaded and split classrooms.

There also was a list of concerns that were mostly unaddressed in the meeting. Those concerns appeared to included what APP and ALO means and whether those definitions were being violated, people's confidence in the APP program, and the level of support APP has from the district.

The same day these meeting notes came out, there also was another e-mail from the APP advisory committee titled "APP Update". A full copy of that e-mail is available from the APP AC Seattle Google Group. An excerpt from it is below:

These transitions are challenging and are works-in-progress--no doubt, this will continue to be a bumpy year, but APP is intact, our elementary and middle school students and staff are adjusting.

Lowell and Thurgood Marshall face unique challenges .... We feel it is very important to acknowledge and address very real parent concerns, and balance those with the realization that it will take time to work out the transitional issues at all our schools.

Our schools will be different from here on out, our children's experiences will be different, hopefully better in the long run. It will clearly take all of us working to help our schools succeed and thrive. It will also take our patience as we hit some bumps during this transition year.

Know that lots of people -- parents, teachers, principals, staff -- are working hard for APP's success, and be reassured that the CAO supports the program, supports the model, supports the work of the Advanced Learning office, and supports the cohort at Garfield.

The APP AC will do what it can to help with communication and raising issues with appropriate people at the District, School Board, the PTSA's, and you, the APP community. We will devote the APP AC Meeting December 2 at Lowell to discussing many of the issues which we did not get to address at the November meeting, plus a few other important topics. Please continue to write us with your concerns...we are working on them.

The e-mail also very briefly addressed keeping APP mostly self-contained and curriculum changes in math and other subjects at all APP levels.

From the frustration I see in previous discussion threads, I have to wonder how this will be received by the APP community. The demand to wait and be patient seems to confirm, as a couple people ([1] [2]) wrote, that "we [can't] even agree ... that violence in the school will not be tolerated" and "no kid should be scared at school". Another parent said earlier, "People needed reassurance that something was being done" and needed to see "the district ... properly resourcing the merger" but "weren't satisfied". Charlie Mas added, "The whole legitimacy of the APP split was predicated on having a written, aligned, taught and tested curriculum for APP... but not only have we no curriculum, we don't even have an acknowledgment of the promise." So then, will the latest be viewed, as one parent angrily wrote, as more of "the typical oddly pro-school-district rhetoric offered by the all the APP AC toadies"?

Please see also the earlier threads, "Impressions from the APP Advisory Committee meeting?" and "What was not discussed at the APP Advisory Committee meeting?", which have parents descriptions of what happened at the recent meeting and what some of their concerns appear to be, including the ones I mention above.

A meeting with the Seattle Public Schools Chief Academic Officer

Stephanie Barnett wrote in the comments:

What are your concerns with APP?

I am a parent advocate for APP who is tired of our ineffective APP advisory board and is doing something about it.

I am your APP PAC ( parent advisory committee) representative. I am also on the Seattle Council PTSA as VP of Enrichment. I have 2 children at TM in APP, a 1st grader and 4th grader.

I have filed a complaint with the ombudsman at the district about the violence on the playground at TM. I am trying to get district help on the playground and help for Julie B. who seems overwhelmed.

I also have a meeting next Wednesday with the CAO Susan Enfield for half an hour to discuss APP issues. Please email me if you have anything you would like me to discuss.

I will be reporting back to this blog about what I find out. I am tired of complaining and want to take some positive action to help our children.

Sincerely,
Stephanie Barnett
VP of Enrichment Seattle Council PTSA
APP PAC Representative
sdonath@aol.com
206-931-4405

Please contact Stephanie directly to work with her on this. Please also use the comment thread for this post to discuss what we should do to take some positive action to help our children.

Update: Charlie Mas offers a detailed list of issues for the CAO in the comments, including the promised but missing APP curriculum, whether high school APP will continue to exist, the need for a north-end APP, and the lack of response to the APP audit.

Missed commitments: APP curriculum and APP review response

Over on the Seattle Public Schools Community Blog, Charlie Mas writes, "What's Due and What's Overdue", a long list of "how horribly slack the Board has been about holding the superintendent accountable for all of the things that are due or overdue."

Two of the items are:

• An aligned, written, taught and tested curriculum for APP
• A response to the APP review

Let's do a thread on these here. Anyone have any thoughts on these? Explanations on why they not yet done? Opinions on how they should be done? Ideas on how to push the administration and get the board's help in pushing the administration to get them done?

Update: In the comments, Charlie Mas adds:

The whole legitimacy of the APP split was predicated on having a written, aligned, taught and tested curriculum for APP. The APP Review specifically warns the District NOT to split the program without implementing a curriculum first. The curriculum was promised to be in place for the start of school this year, but not only have we no curriculum, we don't even have an acknowledgement of the promise - let alone a revised timetable.

It is, once again, the District staff shafting the community and nothing that the community can do about it. The Board doesn't care. They always take the side of the staff against the community. Always. Every time. They will not help us.

The APP review was done two years ago and yet the District has no response. This is supposed to be a project in the Strategic Plan, "Excellence for All", and every strategic plan project is supposed to have a timetable, a scope of work, and action items, but this one has none. It is a non-event. Again, the Board doesn't care. Our elected representatives, the people charged with holding the superintendent accountable, absolutely refuse to do represent our interests or hold her accountable.

APP Math

There has been a lot of discussion (and frustration) in the comments on previous posts about math in APP. One parent wrote:

Don't get me started on APP's failure to teach our kids math!

[The] frustrations I'm facing with my APP first-grader ... He was home-schooled last year and pick up all kinds of math basically by osmosis, but now that he's in school, his math learning has ground to a halt. His teacher seems too overwhelmed by teaching in general to even tackle the notion of differentiation.

When I asked Bob Vaughan himself if he thought it was fair for a child who had been working on multiplication and division and fractions at home to sit through endless lessons on two-digit addition and subtraction for the entire first grade, he actually told me that it might be a good chance for him to go back "and appreciate some of the nuance of all the math he had already learned." ... Maybe Bob Vaughan would rethink his satisfaction with the APP math curriculum and the unspoken no-differentiation rule if more parents made their frustrations known.

Another said:

The math issue is a continuing problem. For middle school math we were instructed to purchase the "Algebra To Go" textbook in order to assist with homework, if needed, in our child's 6HH (APP) class for 6th grade ... After sitting down with our child for a few minutes with the new book, he was working algebraic equations, understanding "isolating" the "x" variable etc. with ease. Something that they haven't even talked about yet in their CMP class.

We haven't supplemented our kids in math at all up to this point - but this makes us think that we really have done them a disservice - assuming that they were getting what they needed at school. Frustrating - but at least the instructor gave us a useful tool to teach at home.

Another wrote:

The irony about the math situation is that many kids are in APP because of their math abilities. Yet, in our experience, when they get into APP there is no differentiation. Being in APP is actually holding them back.

And a fourth worried ([1] [2]) that:

More and more I am becoming conviced that the Everyday Math curriculum is doing more harm than good ... It's enough to make me want to homeschool. Especially having a daughter who is capable, given the right instruction.

My main concern ... is what I perceive as a lack of differentiation. Is differentiation not really a part of the APP philosophy/pedagogy? More and more it seems that APP "accelerates" the child two grades from whatever point they enter and leaves it at that.

It seems that within the top few percent that there is a pretty wide range of abilities. My sense is that those kids that are outliers even within APP are barely getting their needs met ... It feels like the outliers in APP are having an experience similar to what most APP and Spectrum kids are having in General Ed. classrooms. Maybe it's the best we can hope for... I had expected something more.

At curriculum night, we asked our child's teacher about differentiation with regard to math. The response we received indicated that the teachers were pretty much sticking to the EDM curriculum and that if a child wanted to do additional worksheets during their free time they could. Unsatisfactory.

A lot of this appears to center around concerns over recent changes in the math curriculum and the level of individualized challenge children are getting in APP math.

Let's open up a thread on this topic. Are you happy with the current math instruction in APP? If so, what do you like? If not, what do you think should be done about it?

Open thread

Discuss whatever you like!

What was not discussed at the APP Advisory Committee meeting?

From the previous thread, it is clear that both the APP Advisory Committee meeting on Nov 3 and the discussion afterward was dominated by APP parents concerns over safety at Thurgood Marshall Elementary School.

As parents wrote in the thread, this was for valid reasons, as many parents feel their children are not safe at recess, there have been many incidents and injuries, and many parents feel the response has been inadequate. As one parent said, in obvious frustration, "Until we can even agree on a basic fact ... violence in the school will not be tolerated ... nothing will change." Others argued the safety issue threatens the very future of APP. Several demanded the safety problems be addressed immediately.

As important as safety is, there were other issues that people wanted to raise at the meeting. As one parent said:

Almost the entire time for elementary APP discussion was used to discuss safety issues at TM.

Other issues on the agenda which didn't have a chance to be discussed were: perceived disparities between the schools, perception of confidence in the APP program, communication between staff and parents, time outs between ALO and APP classes for disciplinary reasons, bullying, how safety issues are handled by the staff, ways to build community, what can parents do?

Leaving the other thread for continuing our discussion of safety, perhaps we could discuss the unaddressed issues here?

From what I see in the discussion threads, the questions people wanted to discuss but were not able to included:

• What happened to the transition teams we were promised? Did the district properly resource the merger and, if not, what can we do to get them to?
• What does APP and ALO mean (and has it changed due to the split)?
• Since one of the reasons for the split was to give greater access to APP, was that goal achieved? Did more students enroll in APP this year compared to previous years? What does it mean for the split to work?
• What disparities do parents and students perceive between Lowell and Thurgood Marshall and what can be done to address them?
• How confident are parents in the APP Program? What can be done to improve our confidence?
• What level of support does the APP Program appear to have in the district? What can we do to improve that?
• How can we build community between APP/APP at the separate schools and APP/ALO at same school?
• What can parents do? One parent felt that we all are just "wringing our hands ... in hapless despair." Other than that, what can we do? What can we do to get better results?

I tried to pull everything I found in the comments to recent posts. If I missed anything or there are topics that is not yet in the comments, please feel free to add more in the discussion for this post.

So, what do you think? What are your answers to these questions?

Update: Minor change, merged two similar questions in the list.

Impressions from the APP Advisory Committee meeting?

The APP Advisory Committee met earlier this week. Minutes from the meeting are not available yet, but some reports are trickling out from people who were there.

In particular, ArchStanton wrote in the comments to an earlier post that:

Questions that were emailed did not get answered because a lot of time was spent (for valid reasons) discussing safety, behavior, and communication issues.

Let me also add that I was simply dumbstruck by the admission that the T. Marshall community (teachers and students) was not prepared for the arrival of APP this Fall. (This was part of a discussion where it was acknowledged that there was culture shock on both sides.)

Anyone else attend the meeting? Thoughts? Comments? Could you summarize what happened?

Update: A summary by Skeptic from the comments:

Most of the meeting consisted of worried TM parents demanding action on playground safety--and receiving few answers.

There were about 10 Lowell parents in the room compared to about 40 TM parents, and the Lowell parents I talked to at the meeting felt sheepish about bringing up their relatively minor concerns after they listened to some of the stories of the TM parents.

The safety issues are worrisome not just for the anxiety they create, but also, as one mom pointed out during the meeting, because they are demanding so much time and energy from the staff that might otherwise be put toward learning and trying to improve the school.

What would you like to discuss?

What would you like to discuss here on Discuss APP? What is on the mind of elementary APP parents?

Please add ideas to the comments on this post. I will gather them up and, over time, post individual discussion threads for each one.

So, what are you eager to talk about?

APP Advisory Committee requests comments on split

The APP Advisory Committee is meeting on Tuesday, Nov 3 to discuss the APP split, "what is working well, what needs addressing, [and] questions."

They have asked for "your thoughts about the split regarding elementary schools" including "good things, questions, concerns, matters to work on, etc."

For Lowell, e-mail your comments to Geeta Teredesai (geetaat@comcast.net).

For Thurgood Marshall, e-mail your comments to Rachel Miller (rmiller_seattle@hotmail.com).

A copy of the APP Advisory Committee request for comments is below:

The next APP Advisory Committee meeting is scheduled for

* Tuesday, November 3*
* Thurgood Marshall Elementary (2401 S. Irving St., Seattle, 98144)**
* 6:30pm* (note NEW time!)
**
**
Following last month's meeting on middle and high school issues, this meeting will focus on the APP program at the elementary school level at both Lowell and Thurgood Marshall (what is working well, what needs addressing, questions).

Your thoughts about the split regarding elementary schools are requested: good things, questions, concerns, matters to work on, etc. In order to include them in the meeting agenda, please email them to:

• Lowell Elementary Parent Representative, *Geeta Teredesai* geetaat@comcast.net
• Thurgood Marshall Elementary Parent Representative, *Rachel Miller* rmiller_seattle@hotmail.com

All emails will be kept confidential.

The meeting will also include a presentation on *Twice Exceptional* students (students who are gifted and also have a disability). If you have a child in APP who has a Special Ed IEP, a 504 plan, or struggles with a medical, physical, emotional, ADHD, or learning issues and might need more help, please attend. Support, information, and advocacy groups are being formed. If you are interested in Twice Exceptional issues, contact *Stephanie Bower* stbower@comcast.net.

Parents of APP elementary students will also have the opportunity to speak informally with each other and with APP AC members from 6:00-6:30pm.