I hope they have a stronger argument than what's in the paper. The lack of an HC curriculum, HC-related PD for teachers, the number of parents who were counseled to leave their neighborhood schools because teachers flat-out said they could not appropriately differentiate, the district-acknowledged implementation challenges and decreased challenge with Honors for All, the lack of an actual plan for how HC students' needs will be met, etc.... These all would seem to help strengthen the case that the district is attempting to deny appropriate HC services to HC students.
Maybe the special ed complaint mentioned in the article pertains to 2e students? That would make sense to me, as the new appeals criteria seem to discriminate against 2e students.
I don't know if it helps legally, but if they need it, I'm sure they can find plenty of other families and students to join the suit and/or provide statements re: the details of how they were underserved in GE classrooms.
AL seeking applications and nominations for new HC/RESA, deadline Jan 8:
The Superintendent’s Highly Capable and Racial Equity Services Advisory (HC/RESA) will support the development and implementation of procedures and practices for advanced Learning. This committee will advise the district as they design and implement equitable access to advanced learning.
Utilizing the recommendations of the Advanced Learning Task Force, the HC/RES Advisory will convene to advise the district as the Advanced Learning Department and a diverse practitioners work group designs and implements a model or models for advanced learning identification and services that are aligned with Seattle Excellence, the district’s five-year strategic plan, and the Advanced Learning vision, mission, and commitments.
The HC/RESA is established as a committee to run for three years and may extend due to needs and progress of the work.
Applications and nominations for the advisory are due by January 8, 2020, 12 p.m. Advisory appointees will be notified by email, no later than January 17, 2020 with the first meeting scheduled to occur on February 4, 2020. Subsequent meetings will be scheduled every 4-6 weeks in collaboration with the HC/RES Advisory.
The new HC/RESA seems clearly focused on Advanced Learning in general, not specifically HC. Even though it's named HC something, there is intentionally little, if any, focus on HC. Of the 26 member advisory, the only representation for HC will be one elementary HCC school:
Five (5) school-based teams that include one (1) teacher, one (1) school leader, and one (1) parent Two (2) Elementary neighborhood schools One (1) Elementary Highly Capable (HC) cohort school One (1) Non-Pathway Middle School One (1) Non-Pathway High School
Why not call it what it is - AL/RESA? For those who remember the HCS-AC, it was made up of one staff member and one parent from each HC pathway school. The group is also to include:
One (1) Researcher in Giftedness with expertise in the following areas * Differentiated Instruction * High Engagement/Enrichment Strategies
The charge of the group presupposes the interventions. I guess we all pretty much know what the changes are likely to be already, but shouldn't they at least pretend to wait for the current task force's recommendations?
Are they saying there will be no more pathway middle schools or high schools?
Are they saying that parents whose kids are currently at pathway middle or high schools have nothing to add to the conversation?
If the plan is to (mostly) disband HCC and send those kids to neighborhood schools, wouldn't it be good to include more parents of "those" kids (i.e., parents of HC and HCC)?
I could go on, but clearly the makeup of the group isn't intended to really elicit any meaningful information about how to serve HC students well. I'm so tired of this. The district has worn me down to the point of not really caring any more. While I care about all students and tried to speak up for others, I'm done. We're out. SPS wins (even if neuro-atypical students lose). I wish you all the best.
Still wondering what's the general plan for HC/AL, beyond just stating students will be served in their neighborhood schools - How? What level of acceleration will be provided (or removed)? If, as signers of a letter to the Board suggest, less money will be spent on identification so more can be spent on services, how do they propose identifying students for services? Universal testing (say, testing all 2nd graders during the school day) - which would presumably eliminate some of the concerns about families missing the testing window - would cost more than what is happening now, so are they not in support of universal testing?
(1) The legislature finds that, for highly capable students, access to accelerated learning and enhanced instruction is access to a basic education. There are multiple definitions of highly capable, from intellectual to academic to artistic. The research literature strongly supports using multiple criteria to identify highly capable students, and therefore, the legislature does not intend to prescribe a single method. Instead, the legislature intends to allocate funding based on 5.0 percent of each school district's population and authorize school districts to identify through the use of multiple, objective criteria those students most highly capable and eligible to receive accelerated learning and enhanced instruction in the program offered by the district. District practices for identifying the most highly capable students must prioritize equitable identification of low-income students. Access to accelerated learning and enhanced instruction through the program for highly capable students does not constitute an individual entitlement for any particular student.
(2) Supplementary funds provided by the state for the program for highly capable students under RCW 28A.150.260 shall be categorical funding to provide services to highly capable students as determined by a school district under RCW 28A.185.030.
Districts are to identify "through the use of multiple, objective criteria those students most highly capable." For those who consider standardized tests biased, and therefore do not support universal testing (universal testing, not just screening), what *objective* measure is proposed?
The piece includes many interesting links, including a presentation by Baltimore City Schools CEO Dr. Santelises discussing "educational redlining" and "intentionality" in curriculum. As an example, she includes a quote from students in an AP English class:
"We were going to be taking the same exact AP test as the students we met from the other school. We needed to know the exact same things. But while they were starting to read The Odyssey, we were reading The Hunger Games. There's nothing wrong with The Hunger Games. I love The Hunger Games - I read it when I was 12. It just really struck me as unfair."
Her discussion focuses on students developing their intellectual muscle with grade level work. For gifted and AL identified, they seem to have access to additional materials K-5, such as units developed by the Center for Gifted Education at the College of William and Mary, and have honors level classes in ELA/SS, math, and science for middle school. They also have an admissions based, specialized program at 4 middle schools and one high school (grades, PARCC scores, and CogAT considered). From their FAQS:
To promote more equitable opportunities for students to qualify for a seat in the Roland Park program, students from schools with higher rates of economically disadvantaged households received between 5 and 15 added points into their overall composite score. Students from the highest economically disadvantaged schools receive the most points added to his/her composite scores.
Under the Board info for STEMbyTAF, the equity analysis suggests "HCC families may decide to opt out of Seattle Public Schools for local private school education." Is that the plan? If families don't want to participate in an option program not designed for academic acceleration, they can just leave the district? I don't think the SPS HighCap plan submitted to OSPI has district funded "private school" as an option for HC students. It's not clear what is intended by the statement, as there is no elaboration.
I believe that comment reflects take it or leave it. Meaning that if HCC parents in the south want a continuum of services then they should consider switching to private. Otherwise we have TAF here for everyone else.
"The Parties acknowledge and agree that the WMS Curriculum will be based on the principles set forth in the STEMbyTAF academic model, including but not limited to, a STEM focus, and shall not be limited by any such laws, policies or guidelines except to the extent required."
"...In the event a District Board Policy or Superintendent Procedure, the 2019-24 Seattle Public Schools Strategic Plan (“Strategic Plan”), or collective bargaining agreements conflict with the STEMbyTAF model, the Parties agree to amend this JOA in good faith to address conflicts while supporting the instructional model needs of the STEMbyTAF program."
These components of the joint agreement would give me pause as a parent, HC student or not. It's not clear what district policies will be upheld and what recourse families have if policies are not followed. Yes, the district violates, ignores, or loosely follows some policies now, but at least current families have the policies to fall back on when issues arise.
One question that does not seem to have been addressed: - How will TAF deal with part-time homeschooling families? State codes allow home-based instruction students to attend on a part-time basis. The school will not get full funding for those students - how is that taken into account for budgeting? Will class schedules allow for the flexibility to attend part-time?
Just a heads up. The district is teaming with a SE Seattle group to have a Facebook Live chat available for parents enrolling in SPS. I checked with SPS Communications and they seemed to think the district would do this for other groups. It might be worth setting up especially with so many questions surrounding HCC.
Anyone have suggestions for what to do with a child entering sixth grade whose profile shows very high IQ/CogAT scores and above average (80s/90s) IOWA scores (no MAP/SBAC scores available) who misses the cutoff for both Spectrum/HCC?
Sending him to Hamilton gen-ed without the opportunity to take classes that will prepare him for college-track in high school doesn't seem like a good fit.
Anyone have suggestions for what to do with a child entering sixth grade whose profile shows very high IQ/CogAT scores and above average (80s/90s) IOWA scores (no MAP/SBAC scores available) who misses the cutoff for both Spectrum/HCC?
Sending him to Hamilton gen-ed without the opportunity to take classes that will prepare him for college-track in high school doesn't seem like a good fit.
I don't think it's really the case that GE classes at Hamilton won't give your son "the opportunity to take classes that will prepare him for college-track in high school." HCC students only end up about a year or so ahead in high school, and honors and AP classes at the high school level are open to all students, regardless of HCC/Spectrum/GE status. Most high school LA and SS classes have moved to the "honors for all" or honors-by-doing-extra-work model, so I think it's really only science where there's any difference.
If your student is really interested in a more challenging middle school experience to maximize on high school rigor, a couple other options might be online courses (you can even take AP classes if ready); partial homeschooling (e.g., in a single subject of interest); or extra preparation during the summer (e.g., UW Robinson Center classes, community college classes, etc.).
Also, if your son is advanced in math, you may be able to get him into a higher level math class at HIMS, since math is not officially part of HCC in middle school.
I should also note that I'm not sure there's really all that much difference between HCC and Spectrum and GE at Hamilton. To the extent there is, I've never been able to find a teacher, HIMS administrator, or SPS administrator who can clarify what it is. They'll talk about the different qualification levels and say things like "1-2 years ahead," but without specific curricula, and given that teachers are often siloed, it's hard to compare across programs even within the same school. For the most part everyone seems to just assume the appropriate challenge levels are there.
My daughter qualified for HCC - our school would be Cascadia, which seems like a terrific program. Any insight into how likely it is that the program will be dismantled in the next 3-4 years?
I highly recommend checking out Cascadia, if you haven't already, at the Prospective Family Night tonight Feb. 3: https://cascadiapta.org/event/prospective-family-night-2/
Cascadia has been a wonderful fit for our first grader. I attended our PTA meeting last week, and it's important to note that there are currently no actions before the Board to dismantle HCC at the elementary level. Also, if things were to change, it is likely that students who are already in a cohort would be allowed to complete their elementary years as part of the cohort. I'm just a parent, so I encourage you to ask questions at the family night.
And please support SB 6282: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=6282&Initiative=false&Year=2019
27 comments:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/group-files-complaint-with-state-attorney-generals-office-over-gifted-program-changes-at-seattle-schools/?utm_content=buffer17bd8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=owned_buffer_f_m&fbclid=IwAR0kMwu4P8aobcAUlWWRBofTw1yUa9fMm88wLKwl2YMhjRP6GDgVJL9R3Go
https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2019/12/group-files-complaint-over-efforts-to-address-racial-inequity-in-advanced-learning-at-central-district-middle-school/?fbclid=IwAR3pmSjsxueCm6oBi9GGVGAHZC8CFgoAmxKrfqhFAdhrLCOwPD0g8bgQo_o
I hope they have a stronger argument than what's in the paper. The lack of an HC curriculum, HC-related PD for teachers, the number of parents who were counseled to leave their neighborhood schools because teachers flat-out said they could not appropriately differentiate, the district-acknowledged implementation challenges and decreased challenge with Honors for All, the lack of an actual plan for how HC students' needs will be met, etc.... These all would seem to help strengthen the case that the district is attempting to deny appropriate HC services to HC students.
Maybe the special ed complaint mentioned in the article pertains to 2e students? That would make sense to me, as the new appeals criteria seem to discriminate against 2e students.
all types
I don't know if it helps legally, but if they need it, I'm sure they can find plenty of other families and students to join the suit and/or provide statements re: the details of how they were underserved in GE classrooms.
all types
AL seeking applications and nominations for new HC/RESA, deadline Jan 8:
The Superintendent’s Highly Capable and Racial Equity Services Advisory (HC/RESA) will support the development and implementation of procedures and practices for advanced Learning. This committee will advise the district as they design and implement equitable access to advanced learning.
Utilizing the recommendations of the Advanced Learning Task Force, the HC/RES Advisory will convene to advise the district as the Advanced Learning Department and a diverse practitioners work group designs and implements a model or models for advanced learning identification and services that are aligned with Seattle Excellence, the district’s five-year strategic plan, and the Advanced Learning vision, mission, and commitments.
The HC/RESA is established as a committee to run for three years and may extend due to needs and progress of the work.
Applications and nominations for the advisory are due by January 8, 2020, 12 p.m. Advisory appointees will be notified by email, no later than January 17, 2020 with the first meeting scheduled to occur on February 4, 2020. Subsequent meetings will be scheduled every 4-6 weeks in collaboration with the HC/RES Advisory.
https://www.seattleschools.org/families_communities/committees/advanced_learning/advisory_description_and_charge
(more detailed info in link!)
-LP
Also, meeting notes from Nov. 19 ALTF not yet posted.
-LP
Committee after committee after committee, all for naught. What a pointless waste of time.
Garfield parent
The new HC/RESA seems clearly focused on Advanced Learning in general, not specifically HC. Even though it's named HC something, there is intentionally little, if any, focus on HC. Of the 26 member advisory, the only representation for HC will be one elementary HCC school:
Five (5) school-based teams that include one (1) teacher, one (1) school leader, and one (1) parent
Two (2) Elementary neighborhood schools
One (1) Elementary Highly Capable (HC) cohort school
One (1) Non-Pathway Middle School
One (1) Non-Pathway High School
Why not call it what it is - AL/RESA? For those who remember the HCS-AC, it was made up of one staff member and one parent from each HC pathway school. The group is also to include:
One (1) Researcher in Giftedness with expertise in the following areas
* Differentiated Instruction
* High Engagement/Enrichment Strategies
The charge of the group presupposes the interventions. I guess we all pretty much know what the changes are likely to be already, but shouldn't they at least pretend to wait for the current task force's recommendations?
Are they saying there will be no more pathway middle schools or high schools?
Are they saying that parents whose kids are currently at pathway middle or high schools have nothing to add to the conversation?
If the plan is to (mostly) disband HCC and send those kids to neighborhood schools, wouldn't it be good to include more parents of "those" kids (i.e., parents of HC and HCC)?
I could go on, but clearly the makeup of the group isn't intended to really elicit any meaningful information about how to serve HC students well. I'm so tired of this. The district has worn me down to the point of not really caring any more. While I care about all students and tried to speak up for others, I'm done. We're out. SPS wins (even if neuro-atypical students lose). I wish you all the best.
all types
1000% fact: these task forces are window dressing for the district. Parents really ought to start pushing back.
GOOF BALLS
Still wondering what's the general plan for HC/AL, beyond just stating students will be served in their neighborhood schools - How? What level of acceleration will be provided (or removed)? If, as signers of a letter to the Board suggest, less money will be spent on identification so more can be spent on services, how do they propose identifying students for services? Universal testing (say, testing all 2nd graders during the school day) - which would presumably eliminate some of the concerns about families missing the testing window - would cost more than what is happening now, so are they not in support of universal testing?
RCW 28A.185.020
[Highly Capable] Funding.
(1) The legislature finds that, for highly capable students, access to accelerated learning and enhanced instruction is access to a basic education. There are multiple definitions of highly capable, from intellectual to academic to artistic. The research literature strongly supports using multiple criteria to identify highly capable students, and therefore, the legislature does not intend to prescribe a single method. Instead, the legislature intends to allocate funding based on 5.0 percent of each school district's population and authorize school districts to identify through the use of multiple, objective criteria those students most highly capable and eligible to receive accelerated learning and enhanced instruction in the program offered by the district. District practices for identifying the most highly capable students must prioritize equitable identification of low-income students. Access to accelerated learning and enhanced instruction through the program for highly capable students does not constitute an individual entitlement for any particular student.
(2) Supplementary funds provided by the state for the program for highly capable students under RCW 28A.150.260 shall be categorical funding to provide services to highly capable students as determined by a school district under RCW 28A.185.030.
Districts are to identify "through the use of multiple, objective criteria those students most highly capable." For those who consider standardized tests biased, and therefore do not support universal testing (universal testing, not just screening), what *objective* measure is proposed?
For thought:
https://citizen.education/2019/12/05/stop-arguing-about-equity-and-focus-on-student-outcomes/
The piece includes many interesting links, including a presentation by Baltimore City Schools CEO Dr. Santelises discussing "educational redlining" and "intentionality" in curriculum. As an example, she includes a quote from students in an AP English class:
"We were going to be taking the same exact AP test as the students we met from the other school. We needed to know the exact same things. But while they were starting to read The Odyssey, we were reading The Hunger Games. There's nothing wrong with The Hunger Games. I love The Hunger Games - I read it when I was 12. It just really struck me as unfair."
Her discussion focuses on students developing their intellectual muscle with grade level work. For gifted and AL identified, they seem to have access to additional materials K-5, such as units developed by the Center for Gifted Education at the College of William and Mary, and have honors level classes in ELA/SS, math, and science for middle school. They also have an admissions based, specialized program at 4 middle schools and one high school (grades, PARCC scores, and CogAT considered). From their FAQS:
To promote more equitable opportunities for students to qualify for a seat in the Roland Park program, students from schools with higher rates of economically disadvantaged households received between 5 and 15 added points into their overall composite score. Students from the highest economically disadvantaged schools receive the most points added to his/her composite scores.
Under the Board info for STEMbyTAF, the equity analysis suggests "HCC families may decide to opt out of Seattle Public Schools for local private school education." Is that the plan? If families don't want to participate in an option program not designed for academic acceleration, they can just leave the district? I don't think the SPS HighCap plan submitted to OSPI has district funded "private school" as an option for HC students. It's not clear what is intended by the statement, as there is no elaboration.
Anyone received testing results yet for non-SPS students?
Our SPS student received an eligibility decision email this morning, and scores are posted on The Source.
I believe that comment reflects take it or leave it. Meaning that if HCC parents in the south want a continuum of services then they should consider switching to private. Otherwise we have TAF here for everyone else.
Regarding TAF/WMS -
"The Parties acknowledge and agree that the WMS Curriculum will be based on the principles set forth in the STEMbyTAF academic model, including but not limited to, a STEM focus, and shall not be limited by any such laws, policies or guidelines except to the extent required."
"...In the event a District Board Policy or Superintendent Procedure, the 2019-24 Seattle Public Schools Strategic Plan (“Strategic Plan”), or collective bargaining agreements conflict with the STEMbyTAF model, the Parties agree to amend this JOA in good faith to address conflicts while supporting the instructional model needs of the STEMbyTAF program."
These components of the joint agreement would give me pause as a parent, HC student or not. It's not clear what district policies will be upheld and what recourse families have if policies are not followed. Yes, the district violates, ignores, or loosely follows some policies now, but at least current families have the policies to fall back on when issues arise.
One question that does not seem to have been addressed:
- How will TAF deal with part-time homeschooling families? State codes allow home-based instruction students to attend on a part-time basis. The school will not get full funding for those students - how is that taken into account for budgeting? Will class schedules allow for the flexibility to attend part-time?
Just a heads up. The district is teaming with a SE Seattle group to have a Facebook Live chat available for parents enrolling in SPS. I checked with SPS Communications and they seemed to think the district would do this for other groups. It might be worth setting up especially with so many questions surrounding HCC.
Anyone have suggestions for what to do with a child entering sixth grade whose profile shows very high IQ/CogAT scores and above average (80s/90s) IOWA scores (no MAP/SBAC scores available) who misses the cutoff for both Spectrum/HCC?
Sending him to Hamilton gen-ed without the opportunity to take classes that will prepare him for college-track in high school doesn't seem like a good fit.
-wondering
Anyone have suggestions for what to do with a child entering sixth grade whose profile shows very high IQ/CogAT scores and above average (80s/90s) IOWA scores (no MAP/SBAC scores available) who misses the cutoff for both Spectrum/HCC?
Sending him to Hamilton gen-ed without the opportunity to take classes that will prepare him for college-track in high school doesn't seem like a good fit.
-wondering
Is your child currently in a private school (or another district - why no MAP/SBAC scores?)?
Yes. Hasn't had much exposure to standardized testing.
-wondering
@ wondering,
I don't think it's really the case that GE classes at Hamilton won't give your son "the opportunity to take classes that will prepare him for college-track in high school." HCC students only end up about a year or so ahead in high school, and honors and AP classes at the high school level are open to all students, regardless of HCC/Spectrum/GE status. Most high school LA and SS classes have moved to the "honors for all" or honors-by-doing-extra-work model, so I think it's really only science where there's any difference.
If your student is really interested in a more challenging middle school experience to maximize on high school rigor, a couple other options might be online courses (you can even take AP classes if ready); partial homeschooling (e.g., in a single subject of interest); or extra preparation during the summer (e.g., UW Robinson Center classes, community college classes, etc.).
Also, if your son is advanced in math, you may be able to get him into a higher level math class at HIMS, since math is not officially part of HCC in middle school.
I should also note that I'm not sure there's really all that much difference between HCC and Spectrum and GE at Hamilton. To the extent there is, I've never been able to find a teacher, HIMS administrator, or SPS administrator who can clarify what it is. They'll talk about the different qualification levels and say things like "1-2 years ahead," but without specific curricula, and given that teachers are often siloed, it's hard to compare across programs even within the same school. For the most part everyone seems to just assume the appropriate challenge levels are there.
Best wishes,
all types
News report on the 1/22 school board meeting from Katie Herzog at The Stranger
https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2020/01/24/42658513/seattle-school-board-takes-steps-to-dismantle-gifted-program
Thank you for reporting on this and a thank you to Washington Senator Jamie Pedersen for trying to do something.
-nh
My daughter qualified for HCC - our school would be Cascadia, which seems like a terrific program. Any insight into how likely it is that the program will be dismantled in the next 3-4 years?
-curiousaboutcascadia
@curiousaboutcascadia
I highly recommend checking out Cascadia, if you haven't already, at the Prospective Family Night tonight Feb. 3: https://cascadiapta.org/event/prospective-family-night-2/
Cascadia has been a wonderful fit for our first grader. I attended our PTA meeting last week, and it's important to note that there are currently no actions before the Board to dismantle HCC at the elementary level. Also, if things were to change, it is likely that students who are already in a cohort would be allowed to complete their elementary years as part of the cohort. I'm just a parent, so I encourage you to ask questions at the family night.
And please support SB 6282: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=6282&Initiative=false&Year=2019
Post a Comment