Choosing a High School

Open enrollment starting to get closer. So its time for the annual High school choice thread.
Ask all your questions here.

Notes from the Ballard Meeting on new Science Standards

I received some updates from the folks (mostly at Ballard) organizing around the proposed High School Science realignment,

Background:

District Page:

https://www.seattleschools.org/cms/one.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=17533

"The current and new course sequence are: 

Current Requirements

• 9th Grade: Physical Science

• 10th Grade: Biology and Biology B

• 11th Grade: none

New Science Requirements for Class of 2021 and Beyond

• 9th Grade: Physics A and Chemistry A

• 10th Grade: Biology A and Biology B

• 11th Grade: Physics B, Chemistry B

• 11th Grade: Advanced Path: HC, AP or IB science

• 11th Grade: Alternative Path: Science Elective or Career and Technical Education

Because high school students will now have to take three years of science instead of two, the High School Alignment Team has already begun re-arranging standards taught in 9th and 10th grade to help prepare students to successfully take the third year of science and pass the state science exam.

The Alignment Team bundled the standards into six one-semester courses. Each course includes content in either biology, chemistry or physics (Biology A, Biology B, Chemistry A, Chemistry B, Physics A and Physics B). Embedded in each course are the new earth and space science standards as well as engineering, technology and application skills that are a part of the new state standards.

Physics A and Chemistry A are conceptual in content, and the math covered in each would be what students had taken to that point in ninth grade. According to school board policy 2026 and superintendent procedure 2026SP, the A and B courses are not new, but rather a re-alignment of current chemistry, physics and biology course content to align to the new standards, and therefore do not go through a review process."

Link to notes from the recent meeting at Ballard: http://bit.ly/2EeIZvK

Facebook group organizing around the issue

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1336914026440478/about/

Google drive with info:

 https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14SN3Pr24hy9sSjWKHdbIdl6NzrGgXMik?usp=sharing

Currently contains:

• Letter from a Ballard Science Teacher
• Response from the district Alignment team.

Here is a signup form (mainly to get emails to add to the Google Group): https://goo.gl/forms/9pF43lKL5oZkWA7t2

2 new Amendments

There are two new amendment/resolutions for the upcoming Board Meeting related to pathways: 

https://www.seattleschools.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=32846293

Amendment 4:  (West Seattle Area)

Allow current 7th grade highly capable students from West Seattle attending Washington Middle School to enroll in Garfield as rising 9th graders in 2019-20. Approval of this item would allow current 7th grade highly capable students from West Seattle attending Washington Middle School to enroll in Garfield as rising 9th graders in 2019-20.


Substitute Resolution for 18-10

Substitute Resolution No. 2017/18-10 to affirm the vision for equitable access to advanced coursework in all high schools and develop the detailed plan for implementation by 2021-22. 

Approval of this item would replace Resolution No. 2017/18-10 as introduced on January 17 with a substitute version that affirms the vision for equitable access to advanced coursework, calls for more equitable identification practices for advanced learning and highly capable services, and requests a report that will detail the comprehensive plan for increasing advanced learning in all high schools following a collaborative planning process.


18-10 was the horribly flawed resolution that would just dissolve the pathways. The replacement one here offered by Mack, Patu and Pinkham is vastly superior.


Some quick predictions: given 3 board members have sponsored this one and you only need 4 to pass this version will likely pass as will the general interim plan to have the Pathways be Lincoln/Garfield/W. Seattle for the next few years.


Scenario F4.3: The official boundaries going forward. With the ammendments

• The Language Immersion Pathway will also be at Lincoln.
• You will be able to attend your area pathway high school if you are qualified regardless of what middle school you attended.
• Grandfathering was given to the W. Seattle students at Washington Middle School to attend Garfield.
• Language seems to be intact that if you're in a HC pathway High School in 2018-19 you will also be grandfathered.

High School Changes Thread

Per a reader request this thread is for discussion about any of the non-boundary related high school changes for next year.

• New Science Standards: https://www.seattleschools.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=31363959

"Emergent Parent and Educator Science Alignment Changes Meeting

Do you want all children to have access to AP science classes at Seattle Public Schools?
Would you like Ballard HS to be able to continue to offer the Biotech Academy, Ingram's IB program, or the diversity of each high school's science offerings?
Please join us during a community action committee meeting to learn more about planned changes to science learning opportunities at all Seattle public high schools. Our timeline is short for influencing this process. These changes will affect all HS kids starting this fall, as it will radically redistribute science resources!

On Thursday, January 25 at 7 PM at Ballard High School Library, parents and educators will be gathering to discuss concerns related to a planned high school science curriculum alignment to be rolled out starting with the '18-19 freshman class.

Contact Tia Keenan tmkeenan@uwalumni.com with any questions. Hope to see you there!"

• 24 core related scheduling changes
• 8 period day

Note: There is a separate open-enrollment thread for general questions deciding about where to go.  

1/17 Board Meeting

This is a thread to discuss the latest board meeting and high school boundary developments.

Seattle Public Media Stream of the meeting:

http://www.seattleschools.org/cms/one.aspx?pageId=15690

Agenda: https://www.seattleschools.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=31634754

I have not had time yet to view this or parse anything but I hope to make some updates to this post once I have.

What's going on with High School Boundaries

After some conversations with neighbors I realized not everyone can keep up with the rapidly changing situation. So for those of you just joining or who have not been  avidly reading all the posts and comments for the last few months here's a quick summary:

Background:
Almost all the High Schools are overcrowded and only getting worse as larger classes age up.

SPS HS Projections

We're also currently in the process of bringing Lincoln H.S. online. Both these trends require a redrawing of boundaries. At the same time the size of the HCC cohort at Garfield has also increased just like the general population and no longer fits so it has become a huge part of the conversation.

As of right now the district has gone through several unsuccessful iterations of planning that culminated in the board rejecting the staff's plan last month. They are currently exploring one of 2 long term options:

1. Dissolving the HC pathways in high school and sending the students back to their attendance area high schools by 2021.

2. Setting Lincoln up as the North End pathway and W. Seattle H.S. for West Seattle. You can see some maps of the proposed boundaries here: http://discussapp.blogspot.com/…/capacity-scenario-visualiz…

Official SPS Link: https://www.seattleschools.org/departments/enrollment_planning/growth_boundaries/high_school_boundary_changes/

This current round of planning should result in a decision at the end of the month 1/31 if a consensus is reached by the school board.

Why is this important to everyone?

If you look at where the HC students are coming from a huge number are from the Roosevelt and Ballard area and returning them to the building is going to have a dramatic effect leading to either:

1. Increased overcrowding. There are around 530ish freshman even today in a building like Roosevelt that has a capacity for about 400 per class. We're talking about at least 100 more kids on top of that per year.

2. A dramatic domino effect movement of students between buildings. One estimate from Kelli LaRue was about 3000 high schoolers will have to switch in attempt to right size the buildings.

For the HC cohort there are additional risks to being dispersed. These will be felt at the periphery sites like Nathan Hale or Franklin where there are very few identified students and there is neither the money nor the will on the part of the principals to serve them.

I have a write up here with more details:

http://discussapp.blogspot.com/…/editorial-importance-of-pa…

[Since this is a summary and the discussion is already occurring in existing posts I've disabled comments. ]

* I corrected a small mistake in the RHS numbers mentioned.

Editorial: The Importance of a Pathway

Reading some of the comments about various high school pathway options I sometimes feel a disconnect between what commenters are most vocally concerned about and what I see is the critical issue of the moment.  I also think there is a larger conversation to be had about the nature of the high school program but that is not the place we find ourselves today.  In the last board meeting there was a vote where a majority of the board voted to dissolve the high school pathway completely.  Most of the board members are on record and will vote that way again despite the current round of planning. The chance of anything remaining is dependent on convincing four directors that they are still important. Ultimately, its crucial that in analyzing pro/cons of the alternatives we don't lose sight of the larger stakes and that folks are consistent in stressing this part of the message.  This may mean rallying around a plan that is imperfect rather than suffering a much greater loss and I realize that's a hard pill to swallow given various individual circumstances.

To that end I want to make the case that indeed this is true and its crucial to emphasize that  HC students still need a pathway.

Critical Mass:
In order to create classes that meet advanced learners needs and continue the sequence of study that has already occurred in Middle School there needs to be a sufficient number of advanced learners at any site.   At lower grades two classrooms worth of kids is assumed to be enough. The complexity of High School scheduling makes it critical that they are there in large enough numbers to allow flexibility.  For example, if the single Band  class half of the kids are in is at the only period AP US history  is offered  there is  a problem.  Based on  the number of classes at some but not all of our High Schools even adding in the neighborhood HC students does not reach this minimum bar.  This is most clearly evident in the Math/Science pathways where classes like Calculus BC are not offered at many high schools due to insufficient demand.   Given the tight budget  and classroom space constraints the district operates under its simply not realistic to assume classes of non-viable number of students will be offered.  But in small ways across every class experience with large numbers of outliers can inform better teaching, curriculum, and focuses for a school in a way that doesn't happen when you don't see as many students.

Oversight and Advocacy:
The second advantage of the pathways is they provide leverage for families. Once spread out its not very easy to advocate for student's needs. 60 kids in a sea of 1500 are ignorable.  The cohorts also enable families to reach out to to each other and  advocate en masse for the system to change.  The converse side of this situation, is the more sites that exist, the harder any systematic oversight becomes. Over and over again we see various initiatives in the district fail to be consistently carried out across buildings due to site based management. Advanced Learning is even more subject to this variance in implementation given its political nature.


What about everyone else?
One of the the most common complaints I've read is along the lines "I have a Spectrum student who will have to go X. Its not fair there are limited opportunities at X."  I'm sympathetic to this line of argument. My main educational philosophy is meet kids where they are at and provide the classes they need. I think there are two answers to this issue. First, many of the class/grade combinations that we're talking about  are unique. The HCC students need a 9th grade Chemistry class that doesn't conflict with the rest of their 9th grade schedule for instance.  At most of our high schools a student on a  regular non-accelerated track does have reasonable access to core AP classes and most families are satisfied. Like above, having sufficient numbers of students at the same grade requiring the same general classes make this possible. There are also some schools which where more families end up having to access Running Start by the senior year due to missing classes. In some cases, the demand is already there and the principals need to be pushed to meet  it. In others, we really need to consider letting kids move buildings to access unique needs (I don't think this is an issue for a huge number of students) .


Capacity:
Finally, from a purely pragmatic point of view, HC students play an important part in overall capacity management. This is a body of students who will move voluntarily to a different site if there is compelling programming.  Given the space constraints of Seattle Public we should be taking advantage of this phenomena and not exacerbating the space issue by funneling students towards already overcrowded sites. The neighborhood school plan has the most domino effects and disrupts the most students in general because of the misalignment between buildings and student populations.

What's Next (officially)

This is the official statement from the district on the HCC High School Pathway process:
https://www.seattleschools.org/district/calendars/news/what_s_new/satp_and_high_school_boundaries

Note: Its not mentioned but given these proposals are brand new and the extremely tight timeline, its very possible the dates will be pushed back to allow better community engagement despite the start of open enrollment for next year.

picture polls

Student Assignment Transition Plan and High School Boundaries

Posted on 12/12/2017

Student Assignment Transition Plan and High School Boundaries

The Seattle School Board voted not to adopt the 2018-19 Student Assignment Transition Plan (SATP) at the Dec. 6, 2017 board meeting. The 2018-19 Student Assignment Transition Plan included recommendations on new high school highly capable pathways for 2019-20. (Watch a recording of the board meeting.)

This means that options for programs and enrollment outlined in the 2017-18 Student Assignment Transition Plan will carry forward through next school year.

Next Steps

In 2019-20, new high school boundaries will be implemented with the opening of Lincoln High School in North Seattle. Our intention is to integrate any changes to high school highly capable pathways with the new high school boundaries. Any anticipated changes to highly capable pathways would occur at the same time as boundary implementation in 2019-20.

At the Dec. 7, 2017, Operation Committee meeting, School Board Directors requested staff present the following highly capable pathway and boundary scenarios to the High School Boundary Task Force for feedback:

• Four regional pathways with Ballard, Roosevelt, Garfield and West Seattle as pathways;
• Two guaranteed pathways with Lincoln as the north end highly capable pathway (with Ingraham continuing to be an optional site), and Garfield as the south end highly capable pathway;
• Two guaranteed pathways with Ingraham as the north end highly capable pathway, and Garfield as the south end highly capable pathway;
• Complete decentralization in 2021-22 with every attendance area high school offering highly capable services.

A public meeting of the High School Boundary task force will be held from 12:30 to 2:30 p.m., on Thursday, Dec 14 at the John Stanford Center (2445 3rd Ave S) in room 2750. You are invited to attend and listen as staff presents possible related high school boundaries and highly capable pathways. Read more about the High School Boundary task force.

The School Board will deliberate and vote on 2019-20 high school boundaries and any new high school highly capable pathways in January.

Timeline

• Dec.14: Various highly capable pathway scenarios and related boundaries will be presented to the High School Boundary Task Force. View the event entry.
• Jan. 3: Recommended high school boundaries and related highly capable pathways will be introduced to the Board. View the board meeting event entry.
• Jan. 10: A high school boundaries work session with the full board. See the board meeting event entry.
• Jan. 17: Anticipate that the Board will take action on the new high school boundaries and any changes to the high school highly capable pathways. This action would ensure families are aware of new high school boundaries before open enrollment, which is February 5-16. See the board meeting event entry.
• Jan. 20: Option School Choice Fair

If you have questions about next steps for high school boundaries or high school highly capable pathways, please send them to growthboundaries@seattleschools.org opens an email client applicationopens an email client application.

You may also contact School Board Directors at SchoolBoard@seattleschools.org opens an email client applicationopens an email client application(all board directors and cabinet level staff) or SPSDirectors@seattleschools.org opens an email client applicationopens an email client application(only school board directors).

2017-2018 Cohort Demographics

I finally have a complete picture of what happened this year across the cohort. Hopefully this will help inform the discussion.

First there is an overall backdrop of cohort growth.  The 9th grade cohort is beginning of the bubble with the number of kids jumping  30% in a single year.  This can make individual increases at a school look a little deceptive. Numbers were up everywhere except Ingraham which is capped because the pool increased so much.

[Note: the data below has only IHS / Garfield #s in 9-12]

[2016-2017 cohort size data]

So where do the kids originate from now?

Things vary a bit year to year but the largest two draw zones  are Roosevelt and Ballard which are more than half of the entire cohort by themselves.   The north end of  Seattle actually has half the city's population anyway but if you add it up it makes up 68% of the kids in HC cohort.  This is key: if the north end stopped feeding Garfield entirely you'd be left with a pool of around 100-140 kids per year (depending on W. Seattle). This would be a shrinkage from recent years. [I need to find the historical numbers but I think within the last 10 the program was once about this size.]

So what's happening at each school:

First oddly the number of kids actually rose in the total cohort since last year's report. There is no evidence of private school flight.

As you can see Roosevelt had a dramatic shift +43, Ballard +13 but Garfield still was up +62.  This is the root of the alarm at the district level. Although the north end is pulling more kids than initially projected this is still not a sustainable level at Garfield.

Secondly: looking at 9th grade as a whole about  22% went to Ingraham 43% to Garfield and the rest stayed in their neighborhood. The pathways as a whole remained the majority choice. In the north end in specific, the retention rate rose to about 50% which is a new trend versus the previous years.

What's Next?

After the recent student assignment plan votes where the the board eventually voted no to the entire plan the path forward has become murky.

One potential and likely possibility is that the next version of the plan moves forward with no reference to HCC pathways in it at all. That would be a reversion to the staff's first plan and there was one vote during the process where the directors almost all expressed support for that view. Dir Geary would very much like that to happen.

However, the further discussion at the end of the meeting and the Operations Meeting the next day gives a bit of hope. At that meeting, Dir. Mack asked the staff to come up with boundary plans linked to program placement evaluating:

• A 4 pathway option: Garfield/Ballard/Roosevelt/West Seattle
• A 2 pathway option Garfield/Lincoln.

Dir. Burke asked in addition for: 

HC Pathways:
N: Ingraham
SE: Garfield
SW: West Seattle

( Note: a pathway doesn't presume programming. Sending an additional several hundred students to Ingraham doesn't necessarily mean they would need to be IB.)

IB Pathways:
N: Ingraham
SE: Rainier Beach
SW: Sealth

(IBX as option based on local demand and student readiness)

Dual Language Pathway:
N: HIMS to Lincoln

Timelines:

The new maps will be discussed at a meeting of the high school boundaries task force on December 14th.  

The BAR on boundaries will be introduced at the January 3rd board meeting,
There will be a work session on January 10th
The final vote is scheduled for January 13th.
Open enrollment begins on February 5th and runs through the 16th.

Looking at the previous votes there is barely a 4 directory majority to be had for these alternatives. The key swing vote is probably Betty Patu. Now that Franklin is off the table she may be more amenable to arguments for continuation.

Given these time frames, the holidays and the completely new scenarios there is no way to do adequate community outreach. So another potential possibility is the dates are pushed back even if that means beyond open enrollment.

Nevertheless. Its key in the next few weeks that folks who are concerned reach out to the board and make their case.

Second HCS Advisory Committee email re:boundaries

Dear HCC community,

Last month the HCS AC sent an email to the District and Board of Directors regarding the high school boundaries as part of the Student Assignment Plan for the 2019-20 school year. The District then shared its proposal to create five pathway schools for the Highly Capable Students.

In response, following discussion at our November 7th HCS AC meeting and subsequent feedback, we revised our statement and sent it to the Superintendent and the Directors today in advance of any Board discussion (please see below). Final votes by the Board continue to be slated for January 2018 with implementation in Fall 2019.

We strongly encourage the HC community to participate in the Boundary Meetings and provide immediate feedback to the District regarding any potential changes to the HC pathways. Emails can be sent to schoolboard@seattleschools.org - superintendent@seattleschools.org and growthboundaries@seattleschools.org.

To: Superintendent Nyland and Directors

From: Highly Capable Services Advisory Committee

Date: November 15, 2017

Re: Proposed Highly Capable High School Pathways/Student Assignment Plan for 2019-20

Dear Superintendent Nyland and Directors Blanford, Burke, Geary, Harris, Pinkham, Patu, and Peters,

In light of the recent District proposal regarding highly capable pathways for high school and the upcoming Board vote on the Student Assignment Plan, the Highly Capable Services Advisory Committee (HCS AC) would like to voice its concerns and support for aspects of the proposed increase of the number of pathway schools to five. In particular, we:

• Understand the rationale for the selection of Ballard and Roosevelt as HC pathways schools;
  
  
• Are concerned about the selection of Lincoln attendance area students being assigned to Garfield as their pathway school;
  
  
• Recommend that Garfield remain the only pathway school for the Central, Southeast and Southwest in 2019;
  
  
• Suggest that the District first build up the AP and rigorous course offerings at Franklin and West Seattle first, then revisit the idea of making those schools HC pathway sites; and
  
  
• Urge the District to grandfather current high school students and eighth graders into their current high school or pathway.

The HCS AC is comprised of teachers and parents at the elementary, middle and high school levels whose collective experience with highly capable students in our District spans several decades. We have reviewed the numbers of HC students in each of the proposed pathways (see attached) and considered the equity issues that currently and could potentially exist. Please consider our recommendations on the District proposals, rooted in the following analysis and supporting rationale.

Proposal for North End

• Support: The redirection of Northeast and Northwest area HC students to north-end high schools alone would dramatically reduce the number of HC students at Garfield, easing Garfield’s capacity issue and providing an equitable experience closer to home for north-end students. Selecting Ballard and Roosevelt as pathway schools makes sense and aligns with trends: Many HC eligible students already choose their neighborhood school over Garfield (129 at Ballard, 155 at Roosevelt). Pathway changes diverting north-end HC students from Garfield would add about 300 HC students to both Ballard and Roosevelt, creating cohorts of 400-500 HC students at each. This would allow for effective delivery of counseling, meet their social emotional needs, and provide robust AP and elective offerings beyond the already-robust selection of courses (16 and 18 respectively) at both high schools.
  
  
• Concern: We struggle with directing Lincoln-area students to Garfield for two reasons: commute challenges and prioritizing services closer to home. 1) The trip to the Central District is much more difficult than the trip to Ballard, particularly taking public transportation (Metro) in our city’s geography. In fact, this drives many families from Wallingford, Magnolia and Queen Anne to choose Ballard or Roosevelt over Garfield. 2) Lincoln-area families should have a north-end HC option. Under the current plan, if area HC students choose not to attend Garfield, they would be limited to a neighborhood school (Lincoln) which lacks access to the higher-level HC math and science classes they need, because Lincoln is a roll-up school with limited grades and associated classes in its first years of operation.

Proposal for Central, Southeast and Southwest

• Concern: We strongly stand by our recommendation that Garfield remain the single HC pathway school for students in the Central, South and Southwest areas and not split for several reasons: resulting disparity in number of students, as well as impacts to course offerings, cohort size, and finances.
  
  
  • The splits would create a significant imbalance between the north and the south. Garfield has 428 HC students total, very similar to the potential number of HC students at Ballard or Roosevelt. Here is the current breakdown: 184 students from the Garfield area, 95 from Franklin, 41 from Rainier Beach, 32 from Chief Sealth, and 76 from West Seattle, totaling 428 students. The proposed splits would distribute HC students as such: Garfield, 184, Franklin, 146, and West Seattle, 145. This creates significantly smaller HC cohorts at these three high schools than at the two high schools in the north end, where Garfield, Franklin and West Seattle would have HC populations of 15% or less, compared to north-end HC populations of 30%.
    
    
  • No guarantee of course offering parity at Franklin and West Seattle. Currently, Franklin offers 10 AP classes and West Seattle offers 12. These schools would need to significantly increase their offerings before 2019 to align with Garfield, Ballard and Roosevelt. Despite District assurances--and we do support increased advanced learning options at all high schools--limited District resources and fewer Advanced Learners at Franklin and West Seattle would not be sufficient to drive a master schedule for these courses. West Seattle parents have voiced these concerns, and Franklin faces problematic programming of repetitious Physical Science and Biology courses in 9th grade when HC students would already have taken those classes in 7th and 8th grades. This raises many questions about whether the District could guarantee that HC students at Franklin and West Seattle have the same (or similar) offerings as students at Ballard, Roosevelt and at Garfield now, as well as what the process would be to address the scenario if parity did not come to fruition:
    
    
    • Would honors LA and SS options be offered in 9th grade as now at Garfield? Would Franklin require HC students to repeat Science as at Nathan Hale? Would Franklin adopt a new model, and would it be desired? What would the reduced number of HC students at Garfield mean for their ability to sustain current advanced learning offerings?
      
      
  • West Seattle parents have expressed a variety of opinions about a local high school pathway. Some support a HC pathway closer to home, while others are concerned that the smaller cohort size would make it challenging to expand the number of AP offerings at West Seattle High School.
    
    
  • Significant demographic changes could affect financing of Garfield activities. Currently 42% of Garfield are HC students and 38% of the school are Free-Reduced Lunch (FRL); this proposal would reduce the Garfield HC population to about 10%. For better or worse, the number of affluent students would drop significantly, thus affecting PTSA fundraising and music, drama and science fundraising that happens at Garfield. Whether the Garfield community regards these as positive changes is something that should be factored into the equation as well.

Another important consideration is the issue of underrepresentation in the Highly Capable Cohort. For decades, the District and this Committee have wrestled with the highly problematic fact that the Highly Capable Cohort does not reflect the demographic makeup of our district either racially or socio-economically. We believe that the place to address these problems is with testing and identification and with talent development for those students who show potential but do not yet have the achievement piece. Finding solutions at the pre-K and elementary levels is expected to bring results over time. It is important that we serve the needs of every child, including the highly capable cohort. Splintering current HC south-end students into three high schools would not solve the disproportionality problem.

For these reasons, we strongly urge the District to pause with the idea of splitting the HC students up among five high schools. The two schools in the North--Ballard and Roosevelt--already offer an array of AP courses along with robust arts programs, and the addition of more HC students at these schools would have negative impacts only if there is not capacity to accommodate them. Conversely, splitting HC students in the south across three high schools raises many questions and concerns about implementation and equity while only creating a fraction more capacity at Garfield (244 seats).

We strongly support the increase in AP offerings at Franklin and West Seattle. The District should commit the resources and work with those schools to create those opportunities first, then, in two more years (2019) look at whether the split of SE and SW HC students to those schools in 2020 makes sense. Changes of this magnitude to the HC model should be part of a larger plan for these students. We should not be looking at High School separately from the program as a whole.

Finally, we would like to reiterate our request for grandfathering of HC students at any of their current schools. Changes at the high-school level have significant implications for college entrance and any student or family who has committed to a particular high school should be allowed to continue down that road until graduation.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Highly Capable Services Advisory Committee

High School Pathway Demographics

By request, this is a thread to discuss demographic and enrollment issues with the proposed High School Pathways. I'll try to collect data here as well.


Data from the recent HCS AC email:  This is not at all consistent with the previous district data below.  The only explanation for the count change was a huge shift in the 9th grade cohort and inaccuracies in prev. counts.

That's visible in the P223 reports for Roosevelt (up 70+ in 9th) but less so in Garfield/Ballard (both up 25+ in 9th) .

Current Cohort Data

Ballard:

9^th 46

10^th 33

11^th 28

12^th 22

Roosevelt: 

9^th: 73

10^th: 31

11^th: 27

12^th: 22

Ingraham:

9th 101

10th 120

11th 86

12th 83

Garfield:

9th: 211
10th: 149
11th:  156
12th: 136

Overall HC cohorts from 2016-2017.  Note: the huge jump in the now 9th grade cohort.

See:
http://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/Enrollment%20Planning/Reports/Annual%20Enrollment/2016-17/Section%209.pdf  for more interesting numbers.


Updated district data: Note discrepancies with the earlier chart.

Data from the board retreat this year:

HCC Pathway decisions in the latest board materials

This is from a draft of the agenda and so may change.   but there are a couple of  decisions here that  I think are concerning :

• Franklin as a pathway for the SE.
• The lack of capacity impact analysis.

Note: yesterday I assumed this was also up somewhere in the Board Agenda. I have not found it there  yet so that's another reason to treat this as a draft like I originally wrote. In any case I would be surprised if this is the end state.

HCC Advisory Committee Position on the High School Boundaries

Dear HCC community,

As you are probably aware, the District is considering changes to the high school boundaries as part of the Student Assignment Plan that will go into effect for the 2019/20 school year.

Meetings are happening and feedback is being collected, and the HCS AC has sent the email below to make clear our position and recommendations regarding the highly capable and high school pathways.

Today the HCS AC sent an email to the Superintendent and the Directors expressing our position (see below) in advance of staff preparing their recommendations to the Board in November. Final votes by the Board are slated for January 2018 with implementation in Fall 2019.

We strongly encourage the HC community to participate in the Boundary Meetings and provide immediate feedback to the District regarding any potential changes to the HC pathways. Emails can be sent to schoolboard@seattleschools.org - superintendent@seattleschools.org and growthboundaries@seattleschools.org

The three most recent proposals can be found here:

http://www.seattleschools.org/cms/one.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=28262696

Remaining meetings include:

• Monday, October 30, 6:30 to 8 pm, McClure Middle School, gym, 1915 1st Ave W. Interpreters: Spanish, Somali, Chinese and Vietnamese.
• Wednesday, November 8, 6:30 to 8 pm, Cleveland High School, lunchroom, 5511 15th Ave S. Interpreters: Spanish, Somali, Chinese and Vietnamese.
• Thursday, Nov. 9, 6:30 to 8 pm, West Seattle High School, lunchroom, 3000 California Ave. SW.  Interpreters: Spanish, Somali, Chinese and Vietnamese.

Email sent 10/30:

Dear Superintendent Nyland and Directors Blanford, Burke, Geary, Harris, Pinkham, Patu, and Peters,

As you consider changes to the Student Assignment Plan and specifically to the High School Boundaries, the Highly Capable Services Advisory Committee would like to make its voice heard on potential pathways for HC students.

Right now, Highly Capable students have a guaranteed pathway to Garfield High School with an option to attend Ingraham IBX. The HCS AC recognizes that Garfield High School is significantly over capacity at nearly 2,000 students this year. With the recent expansion of HC sites to three middle schools in the north end of Seattle (Hamilton, Jane Addams, and Robert Eagle Staff) and one in West Seattle (Madison), we also recognize that an expansion of the HC pathways for high school is a pragmatic option.

HCS AC strongly recommends that the Superintendent and Board consider adding no more than one new pathway for HC high school students in the north. Furthermore, there should not be an expansion of pathways in the south, and Garfield should remain the HC pathway for students in the south end. We strongly support and encourage the expansion of Advanced Placement courses at additional high schools, but that should not mean dispersing HC students into all high schools. We further recommend that all HC identified students be grandfathered in at their current school.

This committee has long held the position that decisions regarding program placement should not be driven by capacity issues. The integrity of the program at all levels is contingent on having a cohort size that can sustain robust and rigorous offerings. This is also the case at the high-school level.

In our District, the highly capable service delivery model is a combination of acceleration together with increased depth. This means that HC students have experienced this style of learning with a group of their peers for years (perhaps even since first grade). For this reason, there should continue to be options for accelerated study at the high-school level. The most common incarnation of this in high school is Advanced Placement classes. Garfield as a pathway school has a robust offering of AP classes in the arts, math, science, literature, social sciences, computer science and foreign languages together with additional offerings in theater, music, visual art, and journalism.

If an additional pathway were to be created in the north for high school, it is critical that a site be selected that can offer a comparable array of classes as those offered at Garfield and that any site allow students to continue on with their learning without needing to repeat any coursework already completed.

As the District opened new HC sites at the elementary and middle school levels, this Committee--along with the Advanced Learning Task Force in 2015--recommended that cohort sizes remain strong in order to maintain the critical mass necessary to provide the academic and social emotional supports to meet the needs of this population of students. A robust cohort size helps enable efficient use of the limited resources available for the social emotional needs of this population.

Over the course of several decades, the parents and teachers of HC students in Seattle have advocated for the same set of principles for the service and program delivery to HC students. Those that specifically relate to program placement include:

1. Provide consistent and appropriate curriculum across all sites
2. A critical mass cohort at each site
3. Principals, teachers and counselors that are truly committed to and experienced in supporting highly capable and 2e students and their education
4. Sites with welcoming and supportive communities
5. Providing a continuum of strong and rigorous programs for highly capable students

We strongly urge the Superintendent and Board to take these points into consideration as they consider any changes to the pathways. Rapid proliferation--or even elimination--of pathways through high school would cause too much inconsistency across the District for HC students and it would create a lack of opportunity for many students who have been accelerated in their learning for many years.

Sincerely,

Highly Capable Services Advisory Committee