text:
Debate the issues facing Seattle Public Schools, share your opinions, read the latest news. Organize and work for high quality public schools that educate all students to become passionate, lifelong learners.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
APP issues at Boundary meeting
First, Director Chow went off - why isn't she gone already? - on how there is no high school APP so why should APP students get assigned to Garfield ahead of neighborhood kids? Here are some fun facts: despite what Director Chow may think, APP DOES continue through high school. The District has always said so, both in its public documents, in its annual reports to the State (which Director Chow has voted to approve four times), and in its annual grant application (which Director Chow has voted to approve four times). Let's not forget that Cheryl Chow was the principal at Garfield for a time. It's no surprise that the program was not well-supported during her administration.
That was bad enough. Worse, however, is that neither CAO Susan Enfield nor Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson would correct Director Chow's misstatement of the facts.
Worse still, when I asked Dr. Enfield why she didn't correct Director Chow, she asked me "Which classes are the APP classes at Garfield?" In fact, Dr. Enfield appears to support the idea that as we near parity for AP and IB classes at all of our high schools there will be no more need for high school APP, which she appears to regard as a fiction.
In the discussion, Director Carr said that as more high schools offer more AP classes, APP students will just naturally choose their neighborhood high schools anyway, without any need for the District to discontinue the pathway to Garfield.
All in all a very disturbing conversation. It shows how little the Board - or even the CAO - knows or understands about APP or Garfield.
Second point. There was some very pointed talk about program placement and it was clearly stated by Dr. Libros that it is imperitive that programs be placed where the students live. I don't understand how the District leadership can continue to spout this line while obstinantly keeping north-end elementary APP at Lowell.
119 comments:
- brown206 said...
Charlie, I'm curious as to how you would answer Dr. Enfield's question, and, generally, how the APP program is part of Garfield's program structure? I've wondered for a while about how the program looks at the high school level.
- SE Mom said...
I am intentionally being OT here to point out that the thread for helping ot purchase textbooks for Rainier Beach seems to have been forgotten or at least neglected.
I would support a resurrection of some energy and focus to make something happen there. One of the last posts was from faculty at Rainer Beach proposing that dontations could be made through the school.
Lots to focus on with the district now but it is too much to think that some real positive action generated by this blog might be lost.
We need someone with know-how or connections to help determine the correct way to make donations. - 11/4/09, 7:02 AM
- Charlie Mas said...
I would describe the program structure at high school exactly as the District has described it for the past twenty-plus years. It is a cohort program.
If the program is somehow inadequate, then isn't it incumbent on the District leadership to make it meaningful and effective? After all, they designed the program, they implemented the program, and they are responsible for it. For them to disparage it is bizarre. - 11/4/09, 7:52 AM
- Charlie Mas said...
Here's the thing.
Every one of those people loves to tell you about how they support advanced learning, Spectrum and APP. But when Director Chow makes a direct assault on the program and calls for the dissolution of high school APP, not one of them speaks in the program's defense.
CAO Enfield essentially tells Director Chow that she's working on dissolving the program.
Director Carr essentially says that she hopes it will die a natural death to spare them the trouble of having to kill it.
Director Maier - silent.
Director Martin-Morris - silent.
Director Sundquist - silent.
Director DeBell - made some squishy remark in another context about APP being the district's only K-12 program (it's not; it's a 1-12 program) which may have been an effort to affirm that the program does run through high school.
Director Bass - said something about it but I couldn't grasp her meaning or intent. - 11/4/09, 8:01 AM
- Moose said...
I am sure I am about to get blasted, but I have wondered the same thing about the APP high school program. There are no APP classes in high school, just access to AP courses. As far as I understand, all students are able to access AP courses, so the talk about the cohort moving as one to a single high school makes less sense to me. That is, there is no defined APP cohort taking classes as one in high school -- there are other, non-APP, students in classes.
Another thought I have is that by going to the neighborhood high school, the APP kids will be mixed in with other APP-able/Spectrum kids who did not matriculate in the middle school advanced learning program. As we know, there are plenty of kids that don't go to Washington or Hamiliton (for a variety of reasons). So going back to the neighborhood high school certainly doesn't mean that there will be a dearth of academic peers for the APP student.
Is it about friendships? Well, as posters on the blog have pointed out, high school is a time for kids to expand and re-invent themselves. It is not necessarily a bad thing to be with a different set of people than the ones you have spent the last 8 or so years with.
Is it that Garfield offers more APP courses than any other high school? I believe that is a result of the current SAP. In order to have a chance of success, the implementation of the new SAP must address inequities in AP offerings at high school. All high schools need to offer the same amount of AP courses -- even if they don't fill up, right?
I am willing to admit that I may be way off-base. If so, can you educate me then, Charlie, about how little I know about APP or Garfield? I am serious, because I really don't understand under the new SAP how APP at high school will be justified. - 11/4/09, 8:04 AM
- SolvayGirl1972 said...
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the APP middle-schoolers taking advanced math and science classes which would lead them into advanced classes as freshman? And, with the new approval of HS credit for MS work, won't that also lead APP MS students into more advanced classes once they enter HS?
It seems that there is more need for an APP at the HS level than there ever was since most other HS do not offer much in the way of advanced work at the Freshman level.
With that said though, I do think they could split the HS program and send NE kids to Roosevelt (which also has a huge number of AP classes). I can't see how the District thinks it's going to fit all of the kids in Garfield's new HUGE assignment area into the school? - 11/4/09, 8:13 AM
- Stu said...
In addition to the way the program has always been defined, there's another aspect to high school APP. It's not JUST a matter of the cohort, it's having some consideration that you've just accelerated the learning of an entire group and can't then dump 'em off just anywhere. (I know I'm going to get mugged bringing up the concept of fairness when it comes to APP)
If the district wants to make the argument that EVERY high school in EVERY part of the district has a complete complement of AP courses and can continue the educational path upon which the district placed the APP students, THEN there can be a discussion about what is or isn't APP. But accelerating them through 8th Grade and then saying "you're on your own" defeats the purpose of the acceleration in the first place...which, with this administration, may be the idea.
And, for the record, I don't mind debating the merits of the APP program with other parents. There are some very different opinions about educational methodology and lots of people have lots of good ideas. I can even understand that there are administrators who don't necessarily support the APP program. However, I can't tell you how offended I am when a district employee doesn't understand what APP is, how it's defined by the district, and what has been the history of the program. If you work for the district at least take the time to read your documents and learn about the things you represent.
PS - How can they reconcile the "neighborhood schools" concept with placing North APP at Lowell? It's easy. There's no one on the board, or in a position of power, that will stand up and make an "official" fuss about it. No one's going to expend political capital on spoiled rich kids from the suburbs! - 11/4/09, 8:15 AM
- Melissa Westbrook said...
As well, I will be reporting that there was some discussion - unbelievable as it may seem - that McDonald become a foreign language immersion school a la JSIS. I'll go into more detail but it ties in with APP because of this lack of planning and thought on these programs.
Sure, we'll have APP 1-8 and then to sort of carry it on in high school, we'll allow the cohort to move to one school that has the most AP courses. It's not really a program but at least we can say we did something.
Now, they don't even want to admit that.
They believe that as they slooowly get more AP in at high schools that kids will naturally stay in their neighborhoods. That might take a bit of time as Garfield slowly has fewer AP classes and the other high schools slowly get more. But, of course, the best way to get these kids in their own schools is to take away the APP in to Garfield.
With foreign language immersion, it's the same thing. Where is the follow-thru to high school? You have foreign language in all high schools so ergo you need no feeder from the two middle schools you have?
I can't BELIEVE that not one director sees this or cares but yet they want to create yet more foreign language immersion only to have it dribble away at the high school level when, in fact, there should be even more (foreign exchange, etc.). - 11/4/09, 8:33 AM
- uxolo said...
Lowell was established after John Stanford walked around the Madrona classrooms. If you walk into an Honors 9th grade Garfield LA classroom or a 12th grade AP, you will find that these kids have already read some of the literature AND discussed it in middle school. They have been accelerated in the work presented to them and/or (pushed) on their own beyond the average or "above average" national expectation for youth their age. GHS grads are admitted into this country's most competitive colleges in huge numbers, year after year. Most of this crowd has been in the APP program, a cohort of kids, since elementary school.
None of which is to say that other students should not have access to "advanced learning." It is abusive to leave kids on a waiting list or punish a school for transferring students to a special program (APP or Spectrum). When the high scores leave, the school looks worse. This is the shame of American education. The most neglected student is the highly capable African American student.( See April 16,2008 Education Week)
AP = national Advanced Placement - prepackaged potential college credit-to-be-earned course in any university
APP = Accelerated Progress Program - Seattle's name for its gifted or highly capable program, named years ago and always the source of confusion. - 11/4/09, 8:35 AM
- Keepin'On said...
I think that they should split APP at high school into three parts. Move north APP students to Ingraham rather than Roosevelt. If they are truly working grade levels ahead, the IB program should be a perfect fit for those students who require and need challenge. It also frees up some Garfield space for neighborhood students, who are not able to access the school now. Then you put south address kids at Sealth and their IB program, and central kids at Garfield. IB is as advanced or more so than AP classes, right?
If you can test into this program and get into it every year, then the cohort grows and changes each year, right? Except for high school, where no one has access to this program anymore, I think a lot of parents have a problem with that. Changes should and could be made.
But, I am sure I will be vigorously disagreed with here. - 11/4/09, 8:38 AM
- Dorothy said...
Shout out to OT SEMom. I know Melissa is still pursuing the book situation. How to get them the money AND ensure accountability that it is used for this purpose and no other? You can't just write a check to the school or alliance and expect that to happen. Pursuing leads and playing phone tag, all the while attending work session and sussing out the new maps. Melissa is busy but hasn't forgotten.
- hschinske said...
There is no room at Roosevelt -- it's completely jammed (and no, I totally do NOT believe the predictions about their having room in a few years). If they split APP at high school, Ingraham is the only obvious north-end choice.
I agree with Stu: it is offensive when district employees don't appear to understand what's going on in their own district, on issues that have been hashed out again and again. They're either being remarkably stupid, or they think they can get away with riding roughshod over previously established policy as long as they don't actually *say* that they're doing so. Or, of course, both.
The de facto policy at Garfield has always been to try to starve the APP students out by not providing any formal program, and then turning around and saying why do you need to be here, when there isn't any formal program? A lot of families have clung to the cohort at Garfield because it's all they've been allowed, not because they wouldn't rather have some more palpable accommodations.
The district has never, as far as I know, tracked where APP-qualified students enroll in high school, if not at Garfield, and how they do in other schools. Do they score as high on College Board exams? get into the same range of colleges? anything somewhat measurable?
Helen Schinske - 11/4/09, 9:02 AM
- zb said...
I don't understand the APP cohort program (actually, I guess I don't understand the justification), since it seems premised on the notion that other high schools won't offer the same APP classes. So, I'd like to see the APP program (mind you, not APP-eligible kids or advanced students) link to Garfield altered. To deal with the issues people raise (that a subgroup of students might need advanced coursework that cannot be offered everwhere), it would make more sense to have an "audition" type scheme for entry into these courses/classwork. A similar scheme could be used for access to advanced math, language, and music classes. That would allow access independent of enrollment decisions made in middle school.
If a cohort is important (and I see that it might be), let the cohort be formed in high school, since we're not "feeding" high schools anyway.
(Oh, and I suggest this, I wondered how this is handled in high school sports. Is Garfield (or Roosevelt or Sealth) allowed to "audition" athletes for its programs)? - 11/4/09, 9:03 AM
- Melissa Westbrook said...
IB and AP are not the same. Yes, IB is very rigorous but you would not get the same benefits as an AP class (which Ingraham doesn't offer). They are both good things but not anywhere near the same thing.
- SolvayGirl1972 said...
UXOLO said "If you walk into an Honors 9th grade Garfield LA classroom or a 12th grade AP, you will find that these kids have already read some of the literature AND discussed it in middle school. They have been accelerated in the work presented to them and/or (pushed) on their own beyond the average or "above average" national expectation for youth their age."
My daughter got that acceleration at the independent MS she attended, but would have little to no access to accelerated courses as a Freshman at SPS (RBHS wold be our school). Even at her high-end independent HS she is reading literature she read in MS.
The point? There are many kids needing acceleration at the HS level, but SPS has little to offer them. Their lack of interest in the APP HS program seems to be par for the course. There should definitely be a program for those kids in at least two high schools—a program that would build on the accelerated work they did in MS.
But SPS also needs to make sure there are full complements of honors/AP courses at ALL high schools starting at the 9th grade level. Right now, too many of the schools lump all of the 9th-graders of all skill levels together, resulting in classes that are boring for some and confusing for others.
WV: matator -- what I feel like when dealing with all this SPS bull! - 11/4/09, 9:09 AM
- Keepin'On said...
Well, then Ingraham needs to offer AP classes, because all the Ballard families that just got shoved there, and don't have access to APP, need something, don't they?
All high schools need to offer the same amount of of AP courses, and honors courses, and by same I do not mean "decrease them so they will all be the same" I mean increase them to the level of what Garfield and Roosevelt offer. But I think that is another thread. - 11/4/09, 9:17 AM
- Dorothy said...
The advanced science in middle school is brand new. Not anything established and we still don't even know if GHS will be providing more advance science courses to accommodate.
APP middle school kids will no longer be allowed to advance more than two years in math as the middle schools will no longer teacher Algebra2[Integrated3]. Many other students outside APP are just as advanced in math.
9th grade Honors LA at Garfield is not particularly for APP kids, it is simply non-remedial LA.
Spectrum kids all over the city are advanced in 1-8. Yet the district just dumps them in their nearest high school without thought of accommodating them. Why? - 11/4/09, 9:20 AM
- pjmanley said...
Keepin' On: IB is a different route than APP, and a distinctly different program. And there is no room at Sealth for APP kids from W.Sea.
APP parents make the trade-off of putting their kids in a program that meets their needs, but requires removing from their neighborhood schools, in exchange for the promise that, once in the program, they'll stay with their cohort through graduation. Thus, the APP school or cohort becomes the APP kids "neighborhood school."
Few parents would bus their kids out of the neighborhood and across during the elementary and middle school years, only to have them returned to the neighborhood in high school, breaking up their friendships at a sensitive age, and having missed all the intervening years of going to school with the neighborhood kids.
Thus, returning APP kids to their neighborhood schools would be the end of APP for many, if not most, families in the program.
What many on this blog fail to realize is that APP is a special needs program for kids not suited to the standard classroom for many reasons, beyond academics. Kids who are highly capable often have drastically different emotional abilities, or deficits, that make them a "problem kid" in the regular classroom. APP teachers and staff are trained to work with those kids, who state and federal law classify as different.
As with many Alt programs in the district, APP is often a refuge for families who have struggled for years with their child in a non-productive or inappropriate learning environment.
An emerging area of advanced learning is focusing on "twice exceptional" children, who show extremely high capability, but have physical or mental disabilities that interfere with their highly capable minds.
The district is way behind the curve on dealing with such children, but is moving in that direction as well.
What it all comes down to is not about "privilege" or "affluence." APP is a special needs program, recognized by the law as such, and is comprised of alot more than just high test-scoring kids.
To splinter the program at the High School level, would do so much more harm than good, most parents I know would not enter the program in the first place, but would have no choice but to move to another district or go the private route, taking the per pupil funding and high WASL scores with them. - 11/4/09, 9:22 AM
- emeraldkity said...
I have seen reports that show students who were accepted into Ivy league colleges but did not attend them, do as well as those who did.
Background, intelligence and support are still there for that student.
I expect the same is true for those students who attended APP through middle school but chose to attend a different high school as did my daughters college roommate. ( he attended Franklin, because he wanted to see some fresh faces) He still had the ability to do well in high school & college, obtaining an uncommon double major in biology & chem ( only a couple students double major every year @ Reed)
I am not saying we shouldn't have IB/AP classes, merely that it isn't the end of the world for a bright student if they don't go to Garfield.
I think we should pay more attention to rigor in middle schools, my daughter would have loved more depth to the science program and it is hard on kids when they have mediocre academics in middle school, then have to make up quickly what they missed in order to take AP in high school. - 11/4/09, 9:26 AM
- SPS mom said...
According to Washington Administrative code:
Highly Capable Program services.
" Education program plans for each identified highly capable student or plans for a group of students with similar academic abilities shall be developed based on the results of the assessed academic need of that student or group of students. A variety of appropriate program services shall be made available. Once services are started, a continuum of services shall be provided and may include kindergarten through twelfth grade."
The District has chosen to continue it through 12th grade for APP by assigning the cohort to Garfield. Providing "appropriate program services" has meant access to advanced level courses. - 11/4/09, 9:29 AM
- Catherine said...
How does the district deal with "twice exceptional" children right now? Are there APP children receiving services such as OT? How are their huge gaps managed (for example, 2 standard deviations above the mean in IQ and achievement tests, and 2 standard devs below in fine motor skills)?
- Central Cluster Mom said...
Melissa said:
...that might take a bit of time as Garfield slowly has fewer AP classes and the other high schools slowly get more.
I would hope that if APP is split at high school - which I believe is a foregone conclusion based on the size of the Garfield attendance area - the number of AP offerings at Garfield would not decrease.
Are you talking about the number of sections decreasing at Garfield or the number of AP subjects decreasing?
The district should bring the other high schools in line with Garfield - not lower the quality/quantity of selection in an effort to standardize.
If the district brings the other high schools up to the same AP course offerings AND maintains the class selection at Garfield - I could live with that. The number of sections could be adjusted, as needed.
The middle schools were split this year - and, as a result, there has been some major problems at both locations with scheduling. I have no doubt that these same scheduling issues will follow them into high school as the cohort is splintered.
More north-end APP families will take the Roosevelt path if offered - if they are in that attendance area.
Other parts of the city -- not so much as their options are much more limited. - 11/4/09, 9:42 AM
- hschinske said...
Moose said: "All high schools need to offer the same amount of AP courses -- even if they don't fill up, right?"
If they don't fill up, they de facto don't get offered. Doesn't matter that they're in the catalog. This is public school, folks -- they can't offer a class if they have fewer than some minimum number (I am not sure what, but probably over 20).
I remember hearing about a Garfield English elective (Shakespeare, I believe) that has been "offered" in the catalog year after year, but never has enough students sign up for there to actually be a course.
Helen Schinske - 11/4/09, 9:51 AM
- dan dempsey said...
"All high schools need to offer the same amount of AP courses -- even if they don't fill up, right? "
This idea still leaves me very confused. Are we talking the same courses or the same number? This seems to be a spin off of the plan for greater centralization.
Home environment does have an impact. Due to the poor k-8 instructional strategies and lack of effective interventions for students in need ... this centralized thinking seems absurd. Clearly at some schools a greater number of remediation classes are needed so why would an artificial requirement for AP classes be appropriate.
As usual lets look at the data before we go further with the "Club Ed" philosophizing about how we would like the world to be. Lets begin with how it is.
Hale has more than twice the enrollment of Rainier Beach. 2009 WASL math results show at level 4
Hale 33% & RBHS 0%
below level 2 the percentages are:
Hale 17.5% & RBHS 63%
For reading at level 4
Hale 61% & RBHS 16.7% (not including 9% of RBHS previously passed in grade 9)
below level 2
Hale 17.5% & RBHS 26.2%
Centralization will waste a tremendous amount of resources and be unsuccessful. Decentralization is the key to improvement. From past experience :: We can likely expect the Central Admin to do the ineffective unproductive thing and have the board endorse it
Full data on all schools follows below. - 11/4/09, 9:54 AM
- Melissa Westbrook said...
What would happen if the APP link to Garfield no longer existed?
Well, I think that the district, because they created the situation at Garfield for a WAC-mandated group of students. They can't just say, "Every high school has X number of AP classes therefore we have enough rigor for those students." I doubt that would be good enough for those parents to the point where some might sue. (This is me talking and I'm no APP parent nor have I talked to any. But if I were and got the rug suddenly pulled out from under me, I might consider it.)
The district can say they want to increase AP (and they have - RBHS and Cleveland have more through the SE Initiative so good for them) BUT following through across the entire district is a different issue.
As has been pointed out, if they don't have enough students to fill a class, they wouldn't just have 10 kids. They probably wouldn't offer the class. Or they could try what Hale does for some AP classes and try to deliver the curriculum in the regular ed class (but that has its own problems).
So then you have the problem of the district saying one thing (all high schools have AP and we don't need just one high school with enough AP for APP students) with the reality of them being able to deliver.
One interesting thing is perhaps the STEM program at Cleveland could be so strong that those APP kids might move to Cleveland because of the strength of the program. Those kids would drive more AP courses that are non-STEM and it would become a hugely popular school. That may be what the district is hoping but, in the end, you are creating a defacto APP cohort school elsewhere.
The loser in this? Probably Garfield. If you scatter the APP cohort, well, I'm not sure I believe they would sustain the same number of AP courses. - 11/4/09, 10:03 AM
- dan dempsey said...
10 th grade WASL scores
Percentage of students scoring below level 2
Level 1 + No Score
2009 Math
District avg 40%
Hale 17.50%
Ballard 24.60%
Roosevelt 25.00%
Garfield 28.10%
Center 29.30%
Ingraham 44.40%
Nova 50%
Franklin 52.40%
Sealth 52.40%
Cleveland 58.90%
Rainier Beach 63.30%
Level 1 + no score
2009 Reading
District Avg 13.80%
Hale 4.40%
Ballard 4.40%
Roosevelt 6.50%
Center 7.10%
Garfield 8.00%
Nova 12.90%
Franklin 13.50%
Ingraham 19.60%
Cleveland 20.70%
Sealth 23.20%
Rainier Beach 26.20%
Percentage of students scoring at level 4
Keep in mind this does not include previously passed students who WASLed as Freshman
for math 350 out of 2578
for reading 615 out of 2303
previously passed in "( )"
2009 Math Level 4
Dist Avg 16.60% "(6.9%)"
Hale 33.10% "(0.2%)"
Roosevelt 25.00% "(11.8)"
Ballard 24.30% "(2.1%)"
Garfield 23.90% "(11.8)"
Center 17.20% "(0.8%)"
Ingraham 15.50% "(0.9%)"
Nova 13.90% "(28.9%)"
Sealth 8.30% "(7.8%)"
Cleveland 7.50% "(0.0%)"
Franklin 4.80% "(8.1%)"
Rainier Beach 0.00% "(3.3%)"
2009 Reading Level 4
Dist Avg 42.90% "(4.9%)"
Hale 61% "(0.1%")
Roosevelt 54.40% "(5.1%)"
Center 54.40% "(0.4%)"
Ballard 52.60% "1.6%)"
Garfield 48.50% "(5.0%)"
Ingraham 38% "(1.6%)"
Franklin 37.50% "(6.8%)"
Cleveland 32.90% "(1.5%)"
Nova 32.30% "(14.0%)"
Sealth 23.90% "(12.5%)"
Rainier Beach 16.70% "(9.1%)"
Of course we cannot compare the 2008 PSAT results because Dr. Vaughn has failed to release them.
To improve a system requires the intelligent application of relevant data. But the SPS leadership still do not understand that. Look for continued futility with centralized planning.
From Ed Week ...
article "Accept No Substitutes for Real Decentralization"
Scott Oki is pushing for decentralization. I may not like every aspect of Scott's plan but he is right on with decentralization and actual accountability. - 11/4/09, 10:09 AM
- Moose said...
To Melissa --
Isn't the district opening themselves up to a lawsuit by not providing equal access to AP courses though? That is, they can't very well push people back into a neighborhood school without any or very few AP classes, and then say that they are offering access to an equal education under the law. - 11/4/09, 10:18 AM
- Maureen said...
Charlie wrote: APP DOES continue through high school. The District has always said so, both in its public documents, in its annual reports to the State
and ...It is a cohort program.
SPS Mom cited the relevant WAC ...Once services are started, a continuum of services shall be provided and may include kindergarten through twelfth grade."
I think this is key--If a program exists, then late identified students must be allowed to access it. When I have asked the Advanced Learning office why it is not possible to access the APP after 8th grade, they have told me that there is no program at the HS level. (ie, that the WAC-required continuum of services only goes from 1st to 8th grade)
I think Advanced Learning has to decide which is true. They can't have it both ways. - 11/4/09, 10:21 AM
- Rebecca said...
I think there is value for SPS language immersion in general by having McDonald become an immersion program. McDonald and JSIS could be sister schools feeding into Hamilton, which would strengthen Hamilton's immersion program through much larger cohorts. The immersion language class options at middle school could grow (e.g. adding social studies). Right now I think immersion students get one class period of the immersion language, and one semester each of PE and Arts in the immersion language.
Also, by doubling the number of immersion students at Hamilton, there will likely be more energy/commitment (at least from the parents/community) to continuing the program at the high school level, perhaps at Lincoln? Maybe another program could be cohoused there? - 11/4/09, 10:22 AM
- Melissa Westbrook said...
Well, I'm sure the district's legal staff might be able to provide that they are providing a baseline of AP classes so that might cover them for the general population. I'm no lawyer.
But the APP cohort is a different group than just the regular population (they have a WAC that covers their education somewhat). I mentioned a lawsuit simply because the APP group is smaller, has been accommodated by the district for a long time (therefore building precedent) and has some very savvy parents you can't baffle with BS. - 11/4/09, 10:22 AM
- Maureen said...
The problem with sending APP identified kids back to their neighborhood schools is that a culture needs to exist at those schools to meet their needs.
Offering a full range of AP classes is one step, but they also have to be flexible in scheduling. RHS offers as many different AP classes as GHS, but they do not generally offer self contained Honors courses for 9th & 10th graders, so it is more difficult for APP level students to connect with a cohort of like minded kids at RHS than it is at GHS.
RHS does not currently have a way for 9th graders to go straight into Bio, let alone Chem or AP Bio. Math is the only subject at RHS where APP students could currently enter into an appropriate level course in 9th grade and even then, no effort is made to group all of the 9th graders who are advanced in math together, so they cannot benefit from a cohort who moves at a faster pace.
If APP students are dispersed, their academic needs won't be met unless principals are required to change their schools' cultures. - 11/4/09, 10:37 AM
- Roy Smith said...
Maureen has hit the nail on the head as to why the Garfield APP preference is so controversial.
If it is a program (or "cohort", if you prefer), then why can't students test into it at the high school level?
If it isn't a program, then why do the students get the guaranteed spot at Garfield?
It doesn't make sense for it to be a program and not be a program at the same time, but that is how it is currently treated. - 11/4/09, 10:39 AM
- dj said...
Would people be more comfortable with the APP program at Garfield were the AP classes taken by APP students self-contained so that non-APP students could not access them?
- Dorothy said...
DJ, I'd be more comfortable if the program had testing and admission criteria for every grade. Cutting it off at 7th grade is artificial.
Maureen, I totally agree about the lack of building a cohort at other schools, especially RHS which has a lot of APP and Spectrum eligible kids but doesn't offer honors for 9th and 10th graders in humanities. That's why I was so bummed about the AP Euro issue. However, I don't think Garfield is much better in the humanities for 9th and 10th graders.
Also, I do believe that there are math honors options at RHS, 9th graders who were taking Int2 were placed together in honors sections. And kids who came from Eckstein with two years of middle school Japanese were placed together in Japanese 2H (then would take 3H, then AP Japanese). I was once told that GHS doesn't have honors in foreign languages but don't know for sure. - 11/4/09, 10:51 AM
- Charlie Mas said...
First, let's be clear that before APP was at Garfield it was regarded exactly as Rainier Beach is regarded now. It was seriously under-enrolled, it was seriously under-performing, and it had serious discipline issues. People were not fighting to get into it.
Garfield has become an attractive and popular school only because APP is there. APP is the reason for the high number and variety of AP classes at Garfield. In addition, a high percentage of the members of Garfield's extremely successful jazz bands are in APP.
So it strikes me as, well, ungrateful, for people to squak about APP taking up seats at Garfield that are in demand among neighborhood students. Push APP out and the school will not be nearly as attractive.
I will acknowledge the nature and substance of high school APP is rather amorphous, but I will not tolerate the District leadership complaining about the nature and substance of the program when they determined that nature and substance and when they are wholly responsible for it. That's just crazy.
I think it is worth noting the APP review readily accepted the high school program as a fact and did not make any recommendations for changes in the high school program. - 11/4/09, 10:54 AM
- Maureen said...
Charlie, do you think there should be a way for students to enter the APP after 7th grade?
- hschinske said...
"Would people be more comfortable with the APP program at Garfield were the AP classes taken by APP students self-contained so that non-APP students could not access them?"
No, of course not.
I'm not even terribly happy with increased access to AP courses being the sole accommodation (beyond the cohort). AP courses may be more appropriate for students in APP than regular courses are, but that isn't necessarily saying a lot. Basically we're using AP courses for gifted accommodation at the high school level because THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE, not because they're the best tool for the purpose.
The whole reason for the boondoggle is that the district has done as little for APP high school students as it has been able to get away with. Naturally the result doesn't make a lot of sense. But equally naturally, no one for whom the current system works at all wants to give up the little that they DO get.
As I said once in a slightly different context, it's kind of like saying "Oh, we've got this great new universal healthcare plan in the pipeline, no details yet, but meanwhile we've canceled
all the old insurance plans, so that everyone can start out even. Isn't it great that we have equity now?"
Helen Schinske - 11/4/09, 11:04 AM
- SPS mom said...
Maureen - The issue is that the law applies to "identified" highly capable students. If the District does no testing beyond 7th grade, other students that may qualify for high school - yet haven't been in the program - simply aren't identified.
The "continuum" of services applies to those previously identified. Unfortunately, this leaves out those that enter the District later than 7th grade. - 11/4/09, 11:05 AM
- Maureen said...
From what I understand GHS does offer Honors LA and SS classes for 9th and 10th grade. But I think someone here pointed out that they are, in effect, just not remedial (but, you know, that is something).
RHS does offer self contained Honors math (I don't know about language) but in our experience they don't group the kids by grade (my kid had 9th-11th graders in 3H his freshman year). Unless maybe there is a way for people who know about it to request a specific section? Ughh, I hope not. - 11/4/09, 11:06 AM
- adhoc said...
Ingraham offer AP classes in addition to their IB offerings.
- hschinske said...
As far as I am aware, it is unusual to have testing and enrollment into gifted programs as *late* as SPS does it. It's also unusual to have *any* gifted program (whether in name only or not) at the high school level. I'm not saying these things are necessarily right, or the ideal of what should be done, but in context those are not the areas where SPS looks all that bad compared to its peers.
Helen Schinske - 11/4/09, 11:10 AM
- Dorothy said...
"It's also unusual to have *any* gifted program (whether in name only or not) at the high school level."
How common is the model of having a magnet high school for gifted kids with an admission test? Ie, testing kids for high school at the actual time they are going to go to high school. That seems kinda rational to me. - 11/4/09, 11:18 AM
- hschinske said...
Maureen, honors LA at Garfield isn't just non-remedial "in effect." The only other offering for language arts in 9th grade is SPECIFICALLY for students who read below eighth-grade level. Now, that sounds to me a whole lot as though what they really mean is "remedial LA" and "regular LA," but they're not allowed to call them that.
How those classes actually play out may be different, of course, depending on the particular teacher and the particular mix of students. But that always happens.
Helen Schinske - 11/4/09, 11:19 AM
- dj said...
Is it unusual? I grew up in rural California, and my high school had a gifted program (although I think you had to be identified by sixth grade in order to eventually access it, don't quote me on that).
I agree with Charlie. You take APP out of Garfield, the high school will have fewer offerings and won't be as desirable. The map drawn for Garfield's attendance area under the SAP is nice and big. And I don't see that anyone is advocating that APP actually become a self-contained high-school program; generally, when people gripe about it not being a "program," the end they are seeking is that the APP kids be dispersed, not that they get a self-contained program. I would think it better, not worse, for Garfield that a broader variety of students can access advanced learning (and think it doubtful that there would be as many advanced learning opportunities at Garfield for those other students were the APP students dispersed).
I view APP at Garfield as something of a compromise. I think in many ways it would be super to have a self-contained APP high school program that would have a more thoughtful curriculum. I'm not personally all that impressed by AP courses and the amount of "college level" learning they encourage. But putting the students in one place so that they have a cohort, while opening up the classes to other interested and capable students in the building, is to me an acceptable middle road. - 11/4/09, 11:22 AM
- Dorothy said...
Charlie's often argued that Ballard Biotech and RHS music and drama ought to qualify for special option status admissions. By lottery or audition? He's not answered that, but music is certainly by audition within the school. So he should also advocate the same for Garfield, option seats for kids to take advantage of the orchestra or other offerings specific to the school. OF course, the sibling tiebreaker and 10 percent cap on otion seats at RHS and BHS will render the true availablility of options there pretty dismal.
- Carson said...
My daughter is a freshman at Garfield, and is in honors, accelerated, what have you, classes made up largely, but definitely not exclusively, of APP students. She has never participated in APP, by our family choice. While I cannot claim to know as much about the history or structure of the program as those who have participated in it directly, I do know enough as an education professional and a parent who has discussed the program with families opting into and out of it to know that it is not one that I wanted to choose for my children. That said, it has served others well.
Here's the rub. The concept of an APP cohort at Garfield presumes that, as Stu notes, the accelerated group comes from APP. Well, most do, but most certainly not all. In fact, quite a lot of accelerated kids come to Garfield honors and AP courses from Spectrum or Regular programs at Washington (as math is accelerated individually, not by program, kids in any program may be in the higher math classes, along with less-accelerated, or non-accelerated sophomores, juniors and senior; there are 9honors history and language arts classes -- you are not required to have an APP background to register, or to succeed, for that matter); Kids in accelerated math, science, lanuage arts, foreign language and history classes at Garfield are from private middle schools, neighborhood middle school programs like Meany, TOPS, and Madrona, and there are also a pretty substantial number of kids this year from Mclure, Eckstein, Mercer, Madison etc. whose older sibs were in APP or otherwise came to Garfield before the new school enrollment crunch.
Basically, there are a lot of routes to advanced, enriched or accelerated education pre-high school in Seattle, and those of us who opted out of the self-contained program do not see the high school cohort as an APP one. My daughter does see APP cliques, just as she is aware of cliques formed from other middle school groups, sports or extracurricular groups -- that is not the same thing. In fact, she has been describing "who hangs with whom at lunch time" to me in terms of how the Washington kids (primary identifier being school, not program) and kids from other places have split, merged, etc. It's high school, and new cohorts are forming.
Our close neighbors(less than a block away) did not get into Garfield, clearly our neighborhood school, at 1.5 miles and easy walk/bike/bus distance, although their son would have been enrolled in effectively the same courses as my daughter, and most of the APP cohort. Had we not gotten in, we would have been entirely happy at Ingraham (yes, Melissa, IB is not the same as AP; but it offers a lot to the accelerated student; interestingly, we liked it better, but chose Garfield for the "neighborhood" cohort potential, such as it is, given most of our neighbors didn't get in this year). We also would have been happy enough at Nathan Hale, although that program looks different as well (and is a logistical pain in the neck from our neighborhood). A non-APP, but advanced/accelerated neighbor is finding both decent challenge and community there.
I am continually frustrated at the pointing to the handful of "rock star" high schools as the only places for advanced students in Seattle. It is actually harder to get into the Harvards of this world from places with 40 valedictorians, than it is from places with 4 or 5. And really, who says that you need 200 kids for a cohort? Yes, there needs to be a minimum for courses to be offered and filled, and it might have been hard to find that minimum number in central Seattle 20 years ago without APP. That is simply not the case today. And I'm not sure that those minimum numbers don't actually exist in every corner of the city (assuming that kids stayed in their neighborhoods). That's the kind of data we need to drive high school cohort decisions. - 11/4/09, 11:26 AM
- Carson said...
For clarification, when I say "Who needs 200 kids for a cohort?" I mean 200 accelerated freshmen (out of a class of 400). There would be more "academically oriented" peers than that once kids from other grades are included. I realize in this case that I am talking about social cohorts rather than strictly academic cohorts, but I think that is part of what people are looking for...
- emeraldkity said...
APP students are dispersed, their academic needs won't be met unless principals are required to change their schools' cultures.
Which is one of the difficulties with having " twice-gifted" children, there isn't a " cohort", there isn't really anything other than word of mouth and when families bring up concerns, they are treated as they are the only ones in the district who have them.
( and it seems as if principals stay at one school, much less than teachers or students do)
What would push me towards interest in private/charter/voucher schools, would be a place where students can have both their strengths challenged and their weaknesses supported- too often in SPS we have either SPED or APP and I hear only frustration from those whose children have a foot in both categories. - 11/4/09, 11:52 AM
- kanne said...
I'm a mental health professional and a mom of two at elementary level APP.
I've worked with a lot of depressed young people. It is well documented that adolescent "highly gifted" kids are much more prone to depression than their peers. This often shows up in high school. My son is a quirky, nerdy little guy who has trouble making friends. He can do math computations faster than me but really needs help with his social skills. Having a similar peer group in high school will be critical for him.
Many of us APP parents chose APP just as much (if not more!) for the social skills aspect as for the academics. Whether high school APP continues at Garfield or is split into two-- I hope that there is a big enough cohort to provide social (including counseling resources) for our kids. - 11/4/09, 11:54 AM
- hschinske said...
If you want evidence for there needing to be a big enough cohort to offer higher-level courses, just look at the APP middle school split: exactly what parents feared has happened, and they no longer offer third-year math (used to be Int. I, now Algebra II) at EITHER site. That, despite a direct promise from the district that they WOULD have third-year math at BOTH sites.
Helen Schinske - 11/4/09, 12:05 PM
- Charlie Mas said...
Thank you for your story, Carson, but I just don't share your conclusions.
The concept of an APP cohort at Garfield does not, in any way, presume that the accelerated group comes exclusively from APP. On the contrary. I think that the presence of APP at Garfield is intended, in part, to attract other high performing students to the school. That is certainly the effect, and I am absolutely confident that it is implicit in the design.
Before APP was at Garfield the high performing students went elsewhere for school. Putting APP there was, in part, to entice the high performing students in the area to remain at the school.
That's why the classes are not exclusively for students rising out of 8th grade APP. Because everyone knows that there are a lot of other students who are ready and able to succeed with that additional challenge.
I am astonished by the report that a student living 1.5 miles from Garfield did not gain admission to the school. I hadn't heard that the distance tie-breaker was so short this year. Last year it was more like 4.5 miles. Of course, there are all kinds of contingencies that might be the reason - the form may not have been submitted on time, the form may not have been completed correctly, another school may have been named as a higher choice, or there just could have been a mistake in the enrollment office that wasn't appealed as it should have been. I can't say.
I can't say why Carson's daughter got in and her neighbor's children did not. The line for the distance tie-breaker must have run right through her block.
I'm a bit confused by Carson's short list of other schools that would have been acceptable (Ingraham and Hale) and the apparently contradictory suggestion that it is foolish for people to point out "rock star" high schools. I did not see Franklin, Cleveland, or Rainier Beach on her list.
The key here isn't that there aren't plenty of schools that would be acceptable. The key is that there are some schools that are not at all acceptable.
Carson doesn't have any data about the distribution of students who are likely to seek advanced courses but then, in the absence of that data, presumes that they are distributed throughout the city. Carson may not have the data, but it is available and it shows that the students are not, in fact, equitably distributed among the high school attendance areas.
Rather than presuming that you know what the data would show, please defer your conjecture until you have the data to support it. - 11/4/09, 12:45 PM
- Robert said...
ha-ha a RBHS thread jacking of an APP topic. Glad you brought this to our attention Charlie... Also I got wind that the http://discussapp.blogspot.com is up and going again so hopefully we can discuss APP issues without having to constantly defend the program!
- Maureen said...
Charlie, you say:
Carson doesn't have any data about the distribution of students who are likely to seek advanced courses (emphasis added) but then, in the absence of that data, presumes that they are distributed throughout the city. Carson may not have the data, but it is available and it shows that the students are not, in fact, equitably distributed among the high school attendance areas.
Where? I have seen data on the distribution of students who have chosen to test into APP AND chose to enroll at Lowell/TM/WMS/HIMS APP which obviously leaves out: those who don't test, those who do but don't enroll (private school or happy with the 'advanced courses' offered at their school) and others who "are likely to seek advanced courses," but don't qualify for APP. Data on students enrolled in AP and IB classes may exist, but that would leave out those who "are likely to seek advanced courses," but can't access them.
I have also heard that the circle around Garfield was about 1.5 miles this year. I know several people who would have been assigned there in previous years who didn't get in. - 11/4/09, 1:05 PM
- Maureen said...
Robert It looks like the APP blog is only for Elementary APP, so MS and HS topics may have to stay here (to avoid hijacking the 'discussapp' threads!).
- SPSMom said...
I have also heard that at least one middle school, McClure, is planning on ending its Spectrum program. Anybody know anything about this?
I mention this here since somebody else brought up that APP is no longer offering math beyond the two years acceleration and how APP @ GHS days seem to be numbered and on another thread how ALO students are allowed into APP classes at TM and that the APP curriculum is not ready and no mention of it lately.
It seems like advanced learning in SPS is being dismantled. - 11/4/09, 1:14 PM
- Dorothy said...
Charlie, I'm with Maureen here. Where is that data you are talking about? What attendance area zones don't have kids who want advanced or accelerated offerings?
I thought Carson's story was interesting because it validates both Maureen's and my word of mouth knowledge that there are kids who did not attend 8th grade APP who are just as capable and advanced and successful at Garfield as those that did. That there are many paths to that advanced or accelerated status. And as Charlie points out, putting APP at Garfield was designed to attract other high performing students. Perhaps this is why they didn't need admission to APP for high school, because anyone could choose to attend Garfield. Now, that's changed.
And Charlie rags on Carson for not having data, yet implies that he must be wrong about the distance tiebreaker, yet doesn't actually have data to support his theory. What's the appropriate office to call to ask about the actual distance tiebreaker last Spring? - 11/4/09, 1:15 PM
- anne said...
My son is one of those who benefit from the APP cohort being at Garfield. My son is in spectrum at Washington. He is very strong in math and science, but unable to test into APP because he is not as strong in reading. He is general ed science because they don't have spectrum science, but he is two years ahead in math because they have a math placement test separate from the district advanced learning tests. Science has been a disastrous experience at Washington.
I can't wait for HS at Garfield because they have a large number of strong science and math courses and he can enroll in any of them and they won't tell him he has to be in APP.
If the APP cohort wasn't there, I don't know whether there would be enough kids to fill all the AP math and science courses. As an example, they are now considering adding an AP biology class because the incoming APP ninth graders will have already taken biology. In addition, the demographics at Garfield are already going to change to a much higher FRL, because of the population immediately surrounding school, so one wonders how many high performing kids outside of APP cohort will be at that school and whether it will be enough to support wide range advance offerings they currently do.
As an aside, we live on capitol hill and know of a student who lives just north of Aloha and 19th and was right on the beginning of the waitlist this year.
I actually wrote to the district saying that the percent choice slots should be much higher than 10%, because even though I individually greatly benefit from the current plan, I would be furious if I was forced to go to a school such as rainier beach and would be applying to go to Mercer Island high school as an alternative.
Another interesting aside is that Mercer Island uses the Discovery math text for their less capable student class and another one for the more capable class. - 11/4/09, 1:24 PM
- Maureen said...
The APP Population distribution data is actually interesting to look at. (To me at least!) I don't pretend to have done an analysis--but look at the 08-09 Lowell map -- Quite a concentration of kids from Stevens and Madrona--near by schools. Now look at the Garfield map, more kids from farther away, not so much from the GHS area (they don't need to be in the program to get into the school).
The Middle School years are probably where this transition really picks up steam.
How much does this data say about the distribution of 'ability' (or even the "distribution of students who are likely to seek advanced courses ") in the District versus the variation in neighborhood school quality and the willingness of parents to bus a kid far from home to get what they need? - 11/4/09, 1:48 PM
- ArchStanton said...
"Also I got wind that the http://discussapp.blogspot.com is up and going again so hopefully we can discuss APP issues without having to constantly defend the program!"
Thanks Robert.
Can this be posted on the main page? It's gonna' get lost here... - 11/4/09, 2:20 PM
- Howard said...
I'm hearing the suggestionthat we can create the required demand for advanced coursework in high schools by breaking up the APP cohort after 8th grade. The district's data (http://www.seattleschools.org/area/newassign/NSAP_ProposedBoundaries_Appendix_C.pdf) don't seem to support that. Those High School functional capacity projections for 2015 predict a total APP high school cohort of 438. What would happen if we eliminated high school APP?
According to those data, 74 kids would be still be assigned to Garfield. Of the remaining 364, more than half - 186 kids - would be assigned to Ballard or Roosevelt. The numbers for the other high schools are relatively low. To again use Rainier Beach as an example: only 21 former APP students would be assigned there - just five or six kids per grade. The figures are pretty similar for Ingraham, Hale, Sealth, and West Seattle. It is difficult to believe that numbers that low will have significant impact on the school's ability to offer AP or other advanced coursework - and that's assuming that those APP kids show up.
The net result? The schools already perceived as strong (Ballard, Roosevelt) get stronger - and probably will need somewhat smaller attendance boundaries. Garfield, as Melissa noted, probably loses, at least to some extent. (Admittedly my concern, as the parent of an APP 9th grader at Garfield.) The impact on other schools seems negligable at best. - 11/4/09, 2:21 PM
- Dorothy said...
I am not suggesting breaking up HS APP, I would rather see it stay, but with admission allowed into high school, not stopping at 7th grade. What I think is more to the point is that from Charlie's anecdotes from staff, the District is looking at breaking up HS APP.
I am suspicious of the district's estimates of HS APP predictions. APP admission and selection has really grown. When my son started APP in first grade, there were 28 kids total in APP first grade, about 360 kids in all of elementary APP. By the time he was in fifth grade, there were 125 5th graders, well over 500 kids total. The art room and a closet had been turned into classrooms. Art, music and PE time were cut about 20% to accommodate the growth. All school events were curtailed due to fire code and crowded loud cafeteria made lunch a challenge.
I read on this blog that this year 83 kindergarteners qualified for first grade APP! That sort of growth, along with Hamilton potentially being a more attractive north end option for middle school APP, and the changes with the attendance area high schools, I wonder what the true size of the HS APP cohort will be in the coming years. I suspect it will be bigger, and that may be a problem for keeping the cohort at one location.
I also think the district needs to do better for the roughly 10-15% who qualified for Spectrum and for the other high performers that can't get into Garfield. Carson and Anne have kids who desire/need the Garfield programming and will benefit from the attendance area plan. How about kids in other neighborhoods? - 11/4/09, 2:53 PM
- Robert said...
Howard could you re-post the URL with breaks in it (or tinyurl it).
- dj said...
The district does need to do better. But I don't see evidence that breaking up the APP cohort at Garfield does that. Breaking up the APP cohort at Garfield most likely weakens Garfield's offerings and strengthens already-strong offerings at Ballard and Roosevelt without strengthening offerings anywhere else. Who does that help?
- Dorothy said...
DJ, if that question is meant for me, I am not suggesting that breaking up the cohort WILL make things better for others. I am not and have not argued that the cohort SHOULD be broken up. All I am doing is suggesting that the changes already made to APP, including more generous admissions, the splitting in elementary and middle schools, the SAP, AND hints from the district ala the comments Charlie got from Enfield hint that there may very well be movement by staff to break it up.
I think strengthening other high schools is related, but not the same thing. I agree with Helen's metaphor about the district vision and propensity to put the cart before the horse so could very well see them breaking up HS APP without already setting up appropriate infrastructure at the other high schools to do what they should be doing anyway -- acknowledging and challenging their high performers and encouraging more kids to become high performers. That would be bad, but unfortunately, not surprising. - 11/4/09, 3:17 PM
- dj said...
Dorothy, that wasn't aimed at you, but really using your point as a jumping off point to respond to people who are indeed arguing for breaking up APP.
I always get the sense that what people envision is -- break up APP, and then I get a seat at Garfield where my kid will get what Garfield has now, or, alternatively, my kid's current school will get APP students and they will bring AP classes with them.
I just think both of those assumptions are misguided. The APP kids leave Garfield, Garfield isn't going to be what it is now. And the APP kids are mostly going to go to schools that already are excellent and stuffed. I have a kid in APP, but my concern about dispersing APP is actually from the perspective of someone who is drawn into Garfield -- I worry about the fact that we have exactly one well-regarded high school down here, and without APP there, might well end up with zero.
As for people concerned about the 1.5 mile bubble this year for Garfield, the SAP plan eliminates that. I mean, might the district be making bad capacity assumptions? Sure. But that's true for every school under the new SAP. As the attendance area has been drawn, however, it looks nice and roomy. - 11/4/09, 4:03 PM
- SE Mom said...
Went to the Sealth IB open house last night. Nice school community!
I asked about 9th graders entering Sealth this year with advanced math and science. For this school year, there are only 8-10 9th graders taking Algebra II. And NO 9th graders taking Chemistry instead of general science (the advanced math students qualified but declined, I heard).
I also inquired about what students do who continue to take advanced math. I was told that there are many IB math classes available but likely students would be taking them as independent study in the near future, as there will not be enough of a cohort ot offer a real class.
So, what to do for high school enrollment next year? Be part of a growing academic community with a limited same grade cohort? What would it be like to be the only
9th grader in a chemistry class with upperclass students?
How is important is the cohort issue? For our family, I can see both sides. - 11/4/09, 5:08 PM
- Charlie Mas said...
I've got a daughter who will be leaving Washington APP at the end of this year and heading to high school.
Of course we're thinking about Garfield, but we are also seriously considering NOVA. In addition, I want to take a really serious look at Cleveland STEM.
I was a bit surprised that my daughter has absolutely no interest - zero - in our attendance area school, Franklin.
Look at this: Franklin's Snapshot.
It shows that only 28% of Franklin's 10th graders passed the math portion of the WASL and only 18.5% passed the science portion. Compare that with NOVA where 56.7% of students passed the math WASL and 41% passed the science WASL despite the absence of any real labs.
Then there was this surprising information about Franklin: "All 10th-12th grade students enroll in one of four, theme-based academies: CREATE (Architecture, Construction and Engineering), Public Service Academy, Arts & Humanities Academy, and the nationally recognized Academy of Finance."
None of those are of interest to her in any way and I can't say that I blame her. - 11/4/09, 5:33 PM
- SE Mom said...
We are in the very same situation of looking at Franklin (our reference school) and finding that the programs there are of no interest to my kid.
So, Charlie, I would really like to hear your positive thoughts about STEM at Cleveland. Do you truly think the district can get something good set up there by next Fall?
Why would you rule out IB at Sealth? - 11/4/09, 5:52 PM
- reader said...
And here, Charlie's always told his kids he doesn't care what they do on the WASL, or if they even take it at all. And, they should even blow it off in some sort of protest against something. Blow it off on principle, because for the smarties... it's irrelevant. Super relevant for everyone else though. And no way should an APP kid have to pass. But, how incongruous, he does care what other kids do on the WASL. Because, what a darn shame.... those other kids, the ones at Franklin, only got 28% pass rate in math. Only 28% of them pass... means either they're stupid or they have stupid teachers. Either way, it's bad... right? If his kids fail...well, it means they're holding up righteous ideals. Other people fail... well, they're just plain old failures. Definitely... Nova's the place.
- Robert said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- Charlie Mas said...
I think I will never lose my appreciation for the words people put into my mouth.
WASL doesn't mean anything unless you're at a Title I school or until you get to high school where it is a graduation requirement. I have never advocated opting out of the 10th grade WASL or opting out at Title I schools.
WASL pass rates are indicative of the general level of readiness of the students in the building. If three quarters of the students are failing the math WASL then I would presume that at least three quarters of the math department's focus is on getting those students to grade level and not on providing adequate challenge for students who are working AT grade level, let alone beyond it. It speaks to the school's ability to provide advanced coursework.
At Franklin last year only 72 of the 231 tested 10th graders (28%)passed the math WASL. 99 of them (42.9%) scored Level 1. That's not students who didn't test or refused to test. These are students who did their best and demonstrated skills well below standards. Another 64 also failed to pass, but with a Level 2 score.
It doesn't mean that the students are stupid and it doesn't mean that the teachers are stupid. A school's WASL pass rate is much more indicative of their recruiting than the quality of the teaching or learning that happens in the building. That makes it a good barometer of the peer group.
Only 11 Franklin students got a Level 4 score on the math WASL. That's not enough to form a Calculus AP class, is it? So you can expect that Franklin has trouble putting that sort of class together. - 11/4/09, 9:07 PM
- adhoc said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- adhoc said...
Charlie, where did you find the scores kids got on the WASL at Franklin? I'd love to look at that info for my sons high school.
Thanks. - 11/4/09, 9:30 PM
- Maureen said...
adhoc you can get to it by following the maps pages for HSs under the new SAP page. Here is the page for Hale. Click on "School Snapshot."
- reader said...
No, the number of 10th graders passing the WASL math... doesn't say anything about the number who already took it. It doesn't say anything at all about the calculus abilities of some other students in the 12th grade. Why is the WASL a good measure for some people, just not you? If you'll recall, the math WASL isn't even required (nor is the science) so why presume anything about those who did decide to take it, or not?
If you're looking for a calculus class, why not find out if it is offered?
Public schools don't recruit... so WASL scores don't say anything recruiting either. Even more true now than ever.
And finally, it certainly is true that APP students may find Franklin unacceptable because of its offerings or quality of the other students in the building. That's the same for everybody else too, by the way. Oh yeah... you need AP classes... everybody else just likes them. - 11/5/09, 12:42 AM
- Stu said...
Wow, reader . . . take a breath . . . or a pill.
I won't defend Charlie 'cause, in the first place, he can defend himself and, in the second place, you seem to completely misrepresent what he says, even after explained to you in the simplest terms.
Forget the WASL, forget what you think the parents want or need. I'll try to make this simple.
IF the district chooses to take a group of students and accelerate their learning, THEN that district can't suddenly cut them off. IF the necessary classes are only offered at one location, THEN the district must guarantee seating at that location.
This is not an argument for or against APP or an argument about what should happen in the future. APP is an existing program, with a long history of success, that has served the district well. (For the record, many of us feel ALL high schools should be option schools with diverse programs spread throughout the district, so that APP students or language immersion students have some choices they can make.) However, until the necessary courses are offered in all assignment high schools, since the district has chosen to keep the high schools unequal, uneven, and non-option, APP students need to have a place where they can continue the path on which the district has placed them.
PS - Believe it or not, choosing to send a child to the APP program isn't always as simple as it looks. It can be an exceptional education for the right kid but, at the same time, your child is often leaving behind neighborhood schools and programs, friends they've had for years, and walks or short rides to school. Many of us would love to have the APP program closer to home, and many of us wrestle with the idea of leaving the program in high school for something closer. In our case, however, we'd be assigned to Nathan Hale which we feel does not offer the program necessary to continue our son's education. Therefore, until the district changes things, we're heading to Garfield where the teachers know how to teach our son according to his needs. If things suddenly changed and we were offered a guaranteed spot at Roosevelt, I'm not entirely sure what we'd do . . . we'd be talking about a 10 minute walk instead of an hour long bus ride. - 11/5/09, 1:27 AM
- Charlie Mas said...
reader wrote: "No, the number of 10th graders passing the WASL math... doesn't say anything about the number who already took it."
The number I reported for Franklin 10th graders who passed the math portion of the WASL in 2009, 72, included 26 who had passed it in the previous year. 58 additional students passed it in 2009. I had already included the data that you thought I had overlooked.
reader wrote: "It doesn't say anything at all about the calculus abilities of some other students in the 12th grade."
I'm not talking about ability; I'm talking about readiness. Students who are on the usual pace for math classes (Integrated I in the 9th grade, Integrated II in the 10th grade, Integrated III in the 11th grade) take Pre-Calculus in the 12th grade. Only those on an accelerated track are ready to take Calculus.
Students who do not pass the WASL in the 10th grade are not likely to be ready for the Calculus class in the 12th grade.
reader asks: "Why is the WASL a good measure for some people, just not you?"
It's not a good measure of me because I'm not a 10th grade student.
reader asks: "If you'll recall, the math WASL isn't even required (nor is the science) so why presume anything about those who did decide to take it, or not?"
While passing the math portion of the WASL is not a graduation requirement, there are consequences for students who fail it. They are required to take additional math courses. I presume that students taking the math WASL are doing their best. If you have evidence that a significant number of students are giving the test less than their best effort, please provide that evidence.
reader states: "Public schools don't recruit... so WASL scores don't say anything recruiting either."
Let's set aside, for the moment, the question as to whether public schools actively recruit or not.
Perhaps "recruit" wasn't the best word if, to your mind, it requires some active effort to attract specific individuals. In my mind it does not require that active, intentional or selective element. I suppose a more passive word, such as "draw" would be your choice. Whatever the word choice, my intend idea was that the WASL pass rates are more indicative of the types of students who enroll at a school than they indicate the quality of teaching and learning that happens there. The WASL pass rates for Franklin students tells more about the first nine years of their education at other schools than it tells about their most recent year and a half at Franklin. Franklin is no more responsible for their WASL pass rates than Garfield is responsible for the pass rates of the APP students there.
So I wouldn't use the WASL pass rates as a measure of the quality of teaching and learning at the school and I certainly wouldn't write or say the words put into my mouth that the students or the teachers are stupid.
continued... - 11/5/09, 5:02 AM
- Charlie Mas said...
I would, however, use the WASL pass rates to make some educated and reasonable conclusions about the amount of advanced, regular and remedial work being done at the school. There could be some excellent work being done at all three levels or the work at any of those levels could be rather poor. Either way, I don't think it would move the pass rates very much. Only in extraordinary cases do we see schools significantly impact their pass rates.
I would also use the WASL pass rates to get a sense of the peer group and the culture of the school. Is that inappropriate?
My daughter found Franklin unacceptable because she didn't care for the academies they offer.
reader writes: "it certainly is true that APP students may find Franklin unacceptable because of its offerings or quality of the other students in the building. That's the same for everybody else too, by the way."
So other students may find Franklin unacceptable for these reasons, but it's only offensive when my daughter does it because she is in APP? I don't know if that is the meaning that reader intendent, but that's the meaning I took from this statement.
Apparently APP students are not allowed to make the same sorts of judgements that other students are allowed to make.
reader writes: "Oh yeah... you need AP classes... everybody else just likes them."
I never said or wrote that I or my children needs AP classes. I never said it or wrote it because it simply isn't true. In fact, my older daughter is at NOVA which - to the best of my knowledge -doesn't offer ANY AP classes. I don't need them; my kids don't need them. What my kids DO need, however, is a peer group doing advanced work. A robust number and variety of AP classes filled with students are indicative of the presence of that peer group. Students scoring a Level 4 on the WASL is indicative of the presence of that peer group.
Good learning is a group activity. Students need peers to challenge them, to inspire them, to stretch their thinking and show them alternative perspectives. Without a peer group ready for the same lessons the experience is poorer. Without support from the teacher the experience is poorer. Without a culture that values learning and prizes the life of the mind the experience is poorer.
People make school choices every year. People cross schools off their lists every year. There are lots and lots of people who don't choose to enroll their children at Franklin. I'm not more of a villian than lots and lots of other people who make the same choice. I have nothing to apologize for and I find the accusatory tone - not to mention the unsupported conjecture about my motivations - unwarranted. Cut it out. - 11/5/09, 5:02 AM
- uxolo said...
Just 5 or 6 years ago, Franklin had a Classical program that was unique, challenging and rigorous for all. Why was it permitted to end? Something to do with accusations that only the white and Asian kids were in those classes?
See Dan's data for why the kids come in unprepared in math. The Franklin math teachers wanted to teach to ability and had a placement test, but the administration may not have supported it. This is something the centralized office COULD be looking into instead of mandating rotten instructional materials. - 11/5/09, 7:15 AM
- TechyMom said...
This may start a fight, but here goes...
Tracking is NOT evil.
Discriminatory tracking is evil. Intentionally biased placement tests are evil. If those things are happening, they need to get fixed. But, placing kids according to readiness level is NOT evil.
Is there evidence that differentiated instruction produces better outcomes than tracking? For the largest number of students at all ability levels, not just the ones at the bottom? - 11/5/09, 7:47 AM
- Moose said...
Stu wrote:
"IF the district chooses to take a group of students and accelerate their learning, THEN that district can't suddenly cut them off."
Yet this is exactly what the district is doing right now. They acelerate students through 8th grade, then shoo them all off to Garfield while pointig to a suite of AP courses and basically saying "here you go, you're on your own."
My point is that if this is all they are going to do, if there is no real APP program in high school other than AP courses, the same thing (AP and honors courses) could and should happen in the neighborhood high school.
Some posters believe that there are not enough kids to run a full suite of AP courses at every high school. That puzzles me a bit. There is a huge amount of kids, for instance, that live in the RBHS area (I rememeber seeing something like 1600 kids in the RBHS attendance area, as per a SPS map.) SPS is basically telling all families who live in that area that they MUST go to RBHS (yeah, I know there are option schools and set aside seats, but let's just say for the sake of argument that those numbers of are negligible). You are telling me that there aren't at least 100 kids in that newly drawn attendance area to fill AP classes? Really? - 11/5/09, 8:38 AM
- Dorothy said...
They also do that for Spectrum kids. Teach them a year advanced and then just shoo them off to high school.
Note, ironically that they are trying to avoid doing that in middle school, (if my information is correct), in that they are not letting WMS and HIMS qualified 6th graders take Algebra 1 because they don't plan to offer Algebra 2 to them in 8th grade.
Note of course, that this comes just a few years after concerted effort to upgrade math curriculum at Lowell, because with proper instruction, more of those kids could and should be ready for Algebra 1 in 6th grade. - 11/5/09, 8:59 AM
- Moose said...
Clarification: I meant above 100 per grade level (400 total) students capable of AP courses.
- Rose M said...
That is a very interesting question, Techy Mom. I do not know the answer.
I have had my APP eligible kids in both differentiated regular ed classrooms & tracked classrooms.
My experience with tracking is that it works when all the kids are at the same level and the teacher is teaching at that level. But mostly I have found teachers use it as an excuse not to differentiate. They don't differentiate because they believe that all the kids are at the same level. The ELL student can't be in advanced math because she didn't do well enough on the reading part of the cogat. And the teacher doesn't give her advanced math because, "That's what spectrum is for." Everyone gets the same spelling list even if some know all the words. There is only one rubric for written projects assuming that every kid is writing at the exact same level. Kids that still don't have their math calculation accuracy & speed are let slide because they are in an advanced math class so they shouldn't need to review. Kids are not encouraged or allowed to work ahead of the class. I have not had any teacher in my kids' tracked classes differentiate. I really think that every teacher should differentiate, tracked or not.
I actually found that my kids' general ed teachers who used differentiation, were better at keeping my children working on the things they needed to work on than the teachers in their tracked program. - 11/5/09, 10:08 AM
- Melissa Westbrook said...
"You are telling me that there aren't at least 100 kids in that newly drawn attendance area to fill AP classes? Really?"
You're right Moose, there are smart kids, rising kids everyone. But you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Many of these kids have no peers, no knowledge of AP. They might be first-generation to go to college. They might be in a peer-group that thinks working hard at school is for idiots or worse. And, you are telling them to work harder than they ever had.
Absolutely there are smart kids, in numbers, in every single corner of this district. How to convince them, and their parents, and maybe even their counselors that harder classes are the way to go is another tough job after getting the classes into the school. - 11/5/09, 10:22 AM
- hschinske said...
TechyMom, I have no personal evidence of differentiation HAPPENING in any classroom my kids have been in (whether regular, Spectrum, or APP). If folks actually tried it more often (and I have heard *some* anecdotal evidence that a teacher here or there does differentiate), yeah, maybe it would work, but it's the kind of thing that can just go away any time a teacher doesn't feel like doing it. No accountability.
Heck, for two years I had twins side by side in Spectrum and regular classes, and they were getting pretty much the exact same materials -- same math books, same worksheets coming home and all. The Spectrum classes were supposed to be taught math and reading to the *standards* for one year up, but there was no materials support to do so. Since then Whittier has started actually teaching math from textbooks one year up, but it took years and years for even that one small step to occur.
Helen Schinske - 11/5/09, 10:30 AM
- Cecilia said...
I toured Franklin HS three years ago, Jan 2007. At first I was impressed as the principal spoke of all the things they do at the school to bring student up to grade level. I thought that was great. There was no mention of honors classes etc, so I asked what honors classes do you offer. She said we don't offer honors classes. What we can do is, if your child is ahead in math then they can have math class with the sophmores. She made it clear that she wasn't intrested in challenging children working above grade level.
On the positive side there were a few things that stood out, their drama program and they offer wood working. However these options weren't enough to intrest us or our daughter in Franklin.
I am not saying that I know exactly what is actually going on inside the school at FHS. I am only saying what was told to the people on a tour of the school. - 11/5/09, 10:31 AM
- Robert said...
Hum. Back to Carson's point on attendance: Confirmed from enrollment GHS 9th graders were within 1 mi for this years entrance (yikes!) so I would think that they were very lucky or already had another child there.
- frustr4ted said...
[Note, ironically that they are trying to avoid doing that in middle school, (if my information is correct), in that they are not letting WMS and HIMS qualified 6th graders take Algebra 1 because they don't plan to offer Algebra 2 to them in 8th grade.]
I've seen a couple mentions of this, so might as well elaborate. It might even deserve its own thread, because the fallout will affect even more kids next year (see below).
Yes, there will be no Algebra 2 offered in WMS and HIMS next year. At least that is what the district says right now. This in spite of guarantees from the Board that the split would not impact academics, and various individual guarantees by staff and Board members that this would not happen.
However, the reasons for the limits placed on 6th graders right now are speculation. Why? Because the staff will not give any reasons that hold up to logic or scrutiny. We can speculate that it's because there will be no class for them two years from now, but the staff has not acknowledged that, and in fact will not even tell the affected families what the policies are for subsequent years. This is inexcusable.
As for this year, the district will instead try to convince you that no policies and procedures have been changed. And they will try to convince you that ZERO 6th graders in the entire city of Seattle are qualified to take Algebra 1 this year. This is not only impossible, but preposterous. Eckstein alone has several 6th graders who are currently being well-served in Algebra 1 this year. And all of APP and the rest of the district has zero?
The truth paints a different picture. A new test was created last spring that was given to the kids with (purposely) no warning or notice, consisting of material very specific to the books covered in the (rather odd) CMP curriculum in last year's 6th grade APP class. This test does NOT test algebraic readiness, it tests MASTERY of specific material and terminology taught in a very specific class. Much of this material is repeated in the Discovering Algebra curriculum, making use of this test for high-stakes placement even more ridiculous.
Above and beyond that, the staff is refusing to allow ANY other evidence of qualifications, including teacher recommendations, previous passed classes, and test results from other, nationally recognized math achievement tests. The MAP test, which was given district-wide last month, provides the best assessment data the district has had in many years, if not ever. And it clearly shows a number of 6th graders operating well ABOVE the *7th* grade APP kids in math. But that information is disallowed because "the test is new", ignoring the fact that the 5th grade assessment given to about 30 kids last spring is even newer and clearly less reliable.
The bottom line is that a new policy has been created, but the district is saying otherwise. Dishonest, but unsurprising.
Currently, a number of HIMS 6th graders have dropped out of math in the building. More are likely to follow. These are kids who love math and are standouts even among the other very high achievers. There have always been a few of these kids in the city every year, and there always will be! The worst part is that there is an appropriate class in the building, with plenty of empty seats. Some of the kids were actually in Algebra 1 for a month and then kicked out, in spite of performing at or near the top of the class. How is that fair or logical?
Last thing, if you've read this far. Eckstein is next. This is not speculation, it was acknowledged by district staff. If you value your math program at Eckstein, you'd better start building a rock-solid case for it right now. I wish you good luck, because you're going to need it. - 11/5/09, 11:44 AM
- adhoc said...
Maureen, thanks for the link, but I couldn't seem to find the info???
I don't just want the WASL pass rates, but I want the levels that kids scored on the WASL. In other words I want to know how many kids passed with a 1, 2, 3 and 4 in a given subject. Like Charlie provided for Franklin.
Charlie??? Maureen??
Thanks! - 11/5/09, 12:49 PM
- reader said...
TechyMom, You know tracking is great because of what? Your one genious kindergartener (who you are soooo sure is APP qualified even while in preschool) was tracked and therefore you know something? Not. Tracking doesn't work for anybody not in the good track because there are no expectations. That's how it works. And let's get real. Is there going to be an APP college... for all the Garfield students to graudate into? WHy not? Heck, how about APP work place too or APP neighborhood...? Oh yeah, you love diworsity... so long as you don't sit next to them at school.
Those wonderful remediation tracks have been proven over and over and over... to be completely useless. That is what is everyone seems to think those other students need, but not their kid. It's ok to do everything we can to make sure Franklin never has any students take AP... because, well they don't need it.
Look at Montlake, or any multi-aged program. Obviously, those aren't tracked and use differentiated learning. And there's plenty of evidence supporting differentiated learning... even for geniuses like your kid. - 11/5/09, 12:53 PM
- SE Mom said...
To find detailed school test data:
On district website, go to Academics. Click on Research, Evaluation and Assessment. Choose
School Test Surveys.
You can also find the data by looking at the Washington State Schools Report Card website. - 11/5/09, 1:01 PM
- hschinske said...
"The MAP test, which was given district-wide last month, provides the best assessment data the district has had in many years, if not ever. And it clearly shows a number of 6th graders operating well ABOVE the *7th* grade APP kids in math."
Is this data publicly available anywhere? I'd be very interested to see it. And is the district really saying that NO current sixth-graders placed into Algebra 1 on the test last spring? I thought there just weren't supposed to be *enough* to have a class at either HIMS or WMS.
I have my doubts about above-level MAP results being specific enough for math placement decisions. I would expect them to be used more as red flags indicating that the student should be evaluated further. But I will agree that 6th-graders scoring well above 7th-graders who are presumably already successful in algebra is a BIG old red flag.
Helen Schinske - 11/5/09, 1:02 PM
- hschinske said...
Reader, leave the kid out of it. It's totally out of line to sneer at people's children.
Helen Schinske - 11/5/09, 1:06 PM
- SE Mom said...
Web address for school test data:
Follow links to distict and then specific school data and WASL in particular. You can even choose how you'd like to view the data. - 11/5/09, 1:10 PM
- Robert said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- Robert said...
reader diworsity... typo or something you heard on Rush?
Never mind don't respond because after that last rant I will no longer read reader as you clearly suffer from uncontrolled aspbloger's syndrome. - 11/5/09, 2:15 PM
- adhoc said...
ARghhh....Thanks SE mom, but I'm still not seeing the data that I'm looking for. I want to know how to find the level of WASL performance. In other words how many kids scored a 1,2,3 or 4 in any given subject.
Thanks!!! - 11/5/09, 2:25 PM
- SPS mom said...
Go to the OSPI website, find the particular school, then click on the green WASL tab above the school name. Click on the year of interest in the chart next to the graph.
- adhoc said...
Found it! Thanks SPSmom!
- Maureen said...
Frustr4ted, you say: The MAP...clearly shows a number of 6th graders operating well ABOVE the *7th* grade APP kids in math Do you have access to reported MAP data (she said hopefully), or is that based on talking with a few families? Like Helen, I would love to see published MAP data. Does anyone know if it will ever be published? (like the WASL)> Or not (like the 9th grade PSAT--urggh!).
Have the Hamilton families thought about hiring a teacher and doing an after school class? If so, could someone post about it here? I'm thinking that some TOPS families might want to join in. TOPS is still teaching traditional Geometry after school to 8th graders, but had to stop the 8th grade (after school) algebra class because the 8th grade teacher is covering Discovering Algebra during school (supplementation is ok, supplanting is verboten.) I'm thinking there might be a few 6th -7th (even 8th) grade families who might want to join in on a traditional algebra class. (we have books!) - 11/5/09, 4:09 PM
- Charlie Mas said...
I would like to address two points raised by reader.
First, this idea that tracking is bad. Tracking isn't bad if it is done right. Unfortunately it is rarely done right. When it is done right students are able to move from track to track up or down. They should not be designations for life. When tracking is done right, the students in the remedial track are accelerated to bring them up to Standards and the students in the advanced track are focused as much on exploring ideas deeper and more broadly as they are focused on just getting through them faster. The primary alternative to tracking is differentiation within the class. Differentiation is much more difficult to do right than tracking and it is done right even more rarely than tracking.
Second is this idea that people should go to school with classmates of all skill levels because they are going to live and work in a world filled with people of all skill levels. This is a fiction. Lawyers work with lawyers, doctors work with doctors, and engineers work with engineers. While it is not a rule, people generally make friends with and socialize with their intellectual peers - not with people evenly distributed along the spectrum. If we want people of all skill levels represented in the classroom then why break them out by ages and grades? Why not have eight-year-olds in the same classrooms with six-year-olds and ten-year-olds? After all, when they go out into life they will have to live and work with people of all ages, won't they?
We don't have a lot of multi-age classrooms because third graders are learning a different set of knowledge and skills than first graders or fifth graders. We group them according to the work they are doing.
Instead of doing what makes sense to your politics we should do what makes sense for the students' education. Every student should be working at the frontier of their knowledge and skills. Just because two students are approximately the same age that doesn't mean they should be doing the same work in school. Let's put the academics first and consider the politics later if at all. - 11/6/09, 6:57 AM
- frustr4ted said...
[Is this data publicly available anywhere? I'd be very interested to see it. And is the district really saying that NO current sixth-graders placed into Algebra 1 on the test last spring? I thought there just weren't supposed to be *enough* to have a class at either HIMS or WMS.]
Yes indeed, the Advanced Learning office qualified ZERO kids into Algebra 1 this year from across the entire city. Eckstein has several, but they used a different, tried and true test.
MAP data is not publicly available to my knowledge. And because it would call out the erroneous 6th grade math placements, I doubt it will become generally available this year.
The issue of not having enough kids to support a class doesn't (shouldn't) matter until 8th grade. But somehow, magically, now none of the 6th graders are qualified for Algebra, so as the kids roll forward the "problem" disappears!
[I have my doubts about above-level MAP results being specific enough for math placement decisions. I would expect them to be used more as red flags indicating that the student should be evaluated further. But I will agree that 6th-graders scoring well above 7th-graders who are presumably already successful in algebra is a BIG old red flag. ]
Using the MAP as a sole indicator for math placement would be a questionable move right now. Just as using a brand new test based on 6HH/CMP-specific material as the sole indicator for math placement is highly suspect until proven adequate. The fact that it found zero kids in the entire district qualified for Algebra 1 should have been enough to invalidate the test entirely. But worse yet, the current policy is to ignore ALL data except that test. MAP is completely disregarded, as are teacher recommendations, work completed over the summer and any other "portfolio" type information.
This is in contradiction to every other school and program I'm aware of, where ALL relevant information is used to find the best and most appropriate placement for all students. At WMS/HIMS this test is acting as a roadblock rather than a piece of information intended to help students.
Big old red flag indeed. In fact there are many red flags. And the district looks like a clumsy magician trying to conceal the handkerchieves that are poking out plainly visible all over the stage. - 11/6/09, 10:00 AM
- frustr4ted said...
That's certainly an idea worth considering (hiring a teacher for an after-school class). It starts to make sense if you have enough students, but the mix and needs of the students needs to be similar.
You say you have books? Which books do have? And is there a good way to get in touch with you "off-blog"? - 11/6/09, 10:22 AM
- Josh Hayes said...
Charlie writes:
"We don't have a lot of multi-age classrooms because third graders are learning a different set of knowledge and skills than first graders or fifth graders. We group them according to the work they are doing."
This is quite true, and it has always been a real juggling act at AS1 because multi-age classrooms are the norm there (except for K). The day winds up being sliced into pieces which are pretty much age-limited (math, for instance), and other pieces which are teachable across multiple ages.
This is something which works for some kids and teachers, and would not work for others. I think in general, it's too hard for most teachers to deal with. - 11/6/09, 10:39 AM
- Dorothy said...
6th graders were actually in an Algebra 1 class for a month and then taken out? Wow.
I am wondering about the "test results from other, nationally recognized math achievement tests"
Do you mean the PLUS? I've always wished we could have gotten better data from that, not even sure if the district gets the scores. But when my son was in fifth grade, a significant number of APP kids took the PLUS. I suspect that high scores on that show algebra readiness. Has Bob V or anyone specifically addressed this element?
Did you see the placement exam? Did they explain how it was similar and/or different from the one used in the past? I had to exercise FERPA to see my son's exam from 2005. There were two components, one a computational fluency and the other was aligned with CMP materials. One needed 85% in order to place into pre-Int (ie, 7th grade honors level) and one needed 95% in order to take another test, which would determine who got to take Integrated 1. I thought the methodology for determining who was ready for Integrated 1 was pretty bogus and too exclusive. - 11/6/09, 10:54 AM
- hschinske said...
"This is in contradiction to every other school and program I'm aware of, where ALL relevant information is used to find the best and most appropriate placement for all students."
Oh, I would never say that. There are plenty of schools and programs that ignore EVERY piece of data indicating above-level accomplishments and put kids in whatever class they're spoze to be in for their age. See for instance http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/2003-01-20-vanderkam_x.htm. "Stephen Shueh did well enough on the SAT as a seventh-grader to be able to cover algebra and geometry during a talent-search program he took the next summer. He came back to eighth grade — and went right back into algebra class."
This isn't the first time a new kludged-up placement test has been used. On the last one (2005) they were more honest: called it a pilot test and threw out the results. Cathy Rutherford told me at the time that the results would be reported *in general*, but that parents would not get individual scores as the test hadn't accurately reflected kids' skills. I am not sure, but I don't *think* the general report ever materialized.
Now that the district is using algebra/geom/algebra rather than the integrated math, why not go with a tried-and-true algebra readiness exam (of which there are lots), anyway? Why reinvent the wheel?
I just googled algebra readiness tests, and Jay Mathews turned out to have a recent column on algebra readiness. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/03/AR2009110302753.html
Helen Schinske - 11/6/09, 12:26 PM
- Maureen said...
frustr4ted, TOPS has used Elementary Algebra by Harold R. Jacobs. Here's a flyer describing the 08-09 after school class. (please don't use the contact info there--the parent has graduated)
You can find my email by going to the TOPS website and searching maureen@*.org (my seattleschools address is dead so don't use that). - 11/6/09, 1:52 PM
- Melissa Westbrook said...
frustr4ted, I believe Laurelhurst PTA has, in the past, hired a math tutor for their more advanced students. You might check with their PTA about how they did it.
(I did smile when I heard this because I've known people who at students at Laurelhurst and proudly said they didn't need Spectrum. Maybe not but if you have large enough group to fund a tutor because their needs aren't being met in the classroom, then you have a problem.) - 11/6/09, 3:53 PM
- frustr4ted said...
[Do you mean the PLUS?]
No, as I mentioned, it was the MAP. It's a computer-based adaptive assessment that ramps up or down in difficulty based on how the kids perform. Assessments like the WASL provide little, if any, useful information for kids who are significantly ahead of grade level expectations, but the MAP will tell you if your 4th grader is performing at an 8th grade level in math, for instance.
To answer your next question, yes, it was specifically stated that the MAP results would NOT be used for, nor even considered as part of an overall student assessment for math placement. Oddly suspicious, huh?
As for the #s, it was still 85% on the 2nd test to qualify into Algebra 1. About 30 kids city-wide got to take the test. Without seeing a side by side comparison of the tests it would be hard to quantify the differences, but suffice to say that if zero kids qualified city wide, the assessment is broken. Most of the material in this 2nd test is not material that's covered in the classroom; the kids get it at home or elsewhere. So it's also implausible that some district-wide curricular change would account for these results.
I agree that the methodology is too exclusive in general, let alone this year. And isn't it sad that you had to invoke FERPA just to see your kid's test? Was this the same test (2005) that Helen said got thrown out?! - 11/6/09, 10:22 PM
- frustr4ted said...
Note that I said "that I'm aware of". Maybe I should have said that I'm *personally* aware of. ;-)
Of course every educator worth their salt should want to find and use all available data to make the best placement for all students. And even though it doesn't always happen in reality, everyone I've talked with personally at least puts up a good talk. Until now.
[This isn't the first time a new kludged-up placement test has been used. On the last one (2005) they were more honest: called it a pilot test and threw out the results. Cathy Rutherford told me at the time that the results would be reported *in general*, but that parents would not get individual scores as the test hadn't accurately reflected kids' skills. I am not sure, but I don't *think* the general report ever materialized.]
This is really good stuff! Do you have any information you can point to that corroborates the details? I mean that we, or others might use moving forward? I believe Cathy Rutherford was at Cooper when the building was closed, so I don't know if she's even working in the district this year. Anyone know? - 11/6/09, 10:46 PM
- Dorothy said...
OK, Frustrated, I thought you might mean PLUS as well, as "other test." If JHU is still offering the PLUS, I highly recommend it to get a sense of where you child really is, especially if you need some objective measure to advocate for appropriate placement. It's a truly out-of-level assessment, measuring gifted 5th graders at the 8th and 9th grade norm AND in comparison with each other. IF some of these kids have high PLUS scores, that ought to have even more clout than MAP scores.
The WMS math assessment I refereed to is not the same one Helen is talking about. But my son, a fifth grader at the time took both and I used FERPA to see that one as well. Roger Daniels and (Colleen?) then of the Highly Capable office decided to create a district wide math placement test for rising 6th graders and piloted it with the APP kids. They were under the impression (?) that WMS would agree to use their version. Surprise, surprise, WMS ignored them and gave their own. Actually, good thing they did because the district pilot was very poorly written (much worse). I used to teach math and have some opinions about writing a good test and that was not one. Funny, I saw the Daniels one before I went to WMS to see that assessment and the teacher I met with said that Daniels had given them a draft and asked for comments and the comments (which were ignored) matched pretty closely my issues with it.
According to the Daniels test, my son was seriously deficient. According to the WMS test, my son needed pre-Integrated (he scored over 85 but under the 95 threshold. the fact that the ONLY place he lost any points was on one topic - probability - didn't mean anything). Instead we homeschooled math. Four and a half years later, he's a freshman at UW taking calculus. - 11/6/09, 10:48 PM
- Dorothy said...
I should add that seeing how well he did on the WMS assessment (getting everything correct except the wacky probability that is so poorly taught in teh spirals of TERC and CMP) AND how well he did on the PLUS was very helpful for me to have an objective sense of his math achievement. As his parent, I really didn't feel objective. His PLUS scores especially convinced me home schooling was the answer.
I don't know if older kids can take the PLUS, but I would Highly Recommend having your child take the SAT early. Or the ACT. If you want to take summer classes through UW Robinson Center or JHU CTY, you need those scores and the information can be valuable regardless. - 11/6/09, 11:01 PM
- frustr4ted said...
Your note about Laurelhurst made me laugh as well. It's funny because they obviously spent a lot of time, energy and money to make it happen, but failed to recognize the obvious. - 11/6/09, 11:05 PM
- frustr4ted said...
One last note for the night about after school classes/tutors.
Having a tutor to help give some extra enrichment is nice, but much different than providing a "real" accelerated class. Something aimed at a full curricular experience one or more years beyond grade level or peers. After school study sessions, even with a paid tutor sounds more like a math club (please correct me if I'm wrong!) The kids would still be stuck in a redundant, boring class during the day, doing redundant, boring homework every night when they could be spending that precious time moving ahead with interesting and challenging work instead.
But - the interesting thing is that it's REALLY EASY to just drop your math class during the day. Surprisingly easy, with just a bit of logistical support. Then it's just a matter of figuring out how to help your motivated kid with appropriate material and hopefully a small peer group. There are several options available to do this. It's in the beginning stages right now at HIMS, but it would be great if there were other kids/parents interested as well. ?
It's really sad that the district won't even try to support its kids' desire and ability to work beyond their peers, even in the cases where it would be trivial and cost nothing to do so. - 11/6/09, 11:16 PM
- frustr4ted said...
Great info, thanks. If there's a good way to get in touch with you "off-blog", please let me know. I have some other questions (and comments) that really don't belong here. - 11/6/09, 11:27 PM
- SPS mom said...
frustr4ed -
You may find there are many parents nodding their head in agreement with the same frustrations.
As long as parents continue to take it upon themselves to provide the "real" math foundation that their kids are not getting at school, the District can continue doing what it does.
I would like to see an independent survey done at schools throughout the city (supported by PTAs?) with the following questions:
Do you feel your child is getting an adequate math education?
Does your child have an understanding of basic math computation?
Can your child do their math homework independently? (if not, why?)
Does your child receive extra help when needed (either remedial or accelerated)?
Do you supplement at home?
What materials are you using to supplement?
I believe the Board would find the results illuminating. Add to that an analysis of % supplementing vs. % passing the WASL for each school and you will see - it's the curriculum. The curriculum is failing our kids. It's not the teachers, it's not the schools, it's the curriculum. - 11/7/09, 8:03 AM
- Dorothy said...
SPSmom is right on. That is crucial data that the school really ought to have in order to assess its teachers and curriculum and achievement.
Frustrated. I am the Roosevelt High School PTSA treasurer and my email address is listed on the PTSA portion of the RHSseattle.org website. - 11/7/09, 12:53 PM
- hschinske said...
Cathy Rutherford was at Lowell that year -- I think her title was assistant principal, but there were a couple of different administrative titles over the years. Anyway she was basically Julie Breidenbach's second in command, whatever it was called that year.
Johns Hopkins has stopped giving the PLUS (which was developed by ETS specifically for its talent search -- I think it's basically a junior SAT?), and instead gives the School and College Abilities Test (SCAT) at two years ahead up through 6th grade (in other words, second-graders take the fourth-grade SCAT, and so on). They used to use the SCAT only for grades 1-4.
The SCAT is more of an aptitude test, particularly on the math side: all of the questions take the form of two expressions of which you decide whether A is greater, B is greater, A = B, or it can't be determined. So it's more about sizing problems up quickly, estimating, and so forth, not having to actually DO the problems all the way through.
Whitman has more than once had groups of parents hire a teacher (probably a UW grad student) and have an accelerated math class (well, one of the cases I heard about was for only three kids, but I think the other, which was longer ago, was for a lot more).
Helen Schinske - 11/7/09, 1:13 PM