Home › Forums › West Seattle Schools › Arbor Heights Spectrum?
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 25, 2011 at 4:25 am #597729
StringCheeseParticipantCan anyone give me any insight into the Spectrum program at Arbor Heights? Teacher quality, class size, satisfaction… I don’t need a definition of Spectrum, but rather, details about how it is going at Arbor Heights. Thanks!
January 27, 2011 at 7:51 pm #714995
charliemasMemberSpectrum programs require a critical mass of students to be really effective. The program at Arbor Heights is brand new this year so it wouldn’t be fair to compare to the program at Lafayette. There were two other elementary Spectrum programs started the same year as the one at Arbor Heights. Of the three, Arbor Heights enrolled the most students, 14. That’s really, really good.
Additionally, the principal, the staff, and the community at Arbor Heights are supportive of the program. That’s also really really good.
So, although there isn’t much of a track record yet, the two most critical elements of an effective program are in place: strong enrollment and community support.
If you have a Spectrum-eligible child ask yourself and ask the schools: “Will my child get an appropriate academic opportunity here?” That opportunity will come from two places: the willingness of the teachers to support work beyond Standards and a peer group of students who will help to challenge and prompt your child.
Good luck!
January 27, 2011 at 9:36 pm #714996
hopeyParticipantPlease keep in mind that funding for the Advanced Learning program is likely to be cut in the next state budget. From what I understand, on a practical level this means:
* if your child did not go through the testing this past November, you are out of luck because there will be no more testing to qualify gifted and highly gifted kids
* there will be no more administrators overseeing Advanced Learning programs, again meaning there is no one to decide eligibility, even if there was testing
* programs like Spectrum will remain in place for the existing cohorts, but due to lack of testing, no new cohorts will be formed after the 2011-12 school year. So kids currently in Advanced Learning programs will likely be able to continue, but there will be no new classes formed.
Here is a message from the current Advanced Learning director, Bob Vaughan, coincidentally posted on the Arbor Heights PTSA board:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ahptsa/message/2368
And here is the Google Group for the APP Advisory Committee, which has current status information:
January 28, 2011 at 4:55 am #714997
K2M2MemberI am confused. AH hasn’t started their Spectrum program yet, so how could they have chosen 14 students when the results for those tested won’t be mailed until February?
January 29, 2011 at 7:25 am #714998
SpeakLoudMemberI’m pretty sure AH Spectrum has started-they have kids doing ‘spectrum’ level works-they may not be seperated yet???
January 29, 2011 at 7:21 pm #714999
berthaParticipantArbor Heights started Spectrum this fall. SpeakLoud is correct the Spectrum kids are not in separate classrooms yet.
January 29, 2011 at 11:38 pm #715000
BonnieParticipantWill they ever be in separate classrooms?
January 30, 2011 at 2:12 am #715001
SpeakLoudMemberIf there is enough of them is my guess-but in the same way it is not ‘best practice’ to remove children with Special Needs I argue that it is also not ‘best practice’ to remove students who can help other students and model for them-they continue to deepen their own learning at the same time-and lets face it-they won’t get any less smart!
January 30, 2011 at 3:39 am #715002
hopeyParticipantI couldn’t disagree more. My stepson was miserable in his old school district. The in-class “challenge” work he received only served to set him apart from his average-level peers, and he felt it was unfair that he had to do extra work just because he was smart. Last year he was in an average classroom, bored to tears and being disruptive as a result.
This year he finally got into a Spectrum class, and holy cow what a difference! He is finally in an entire classroom full of his intellectual peers. The quality of his classwork as well as his work ethic has vastly improved — he is no longer being asked to do more than anyone else in the class, so he has the incentive to keep up with his peers. The disruptive behavior has completely disappeared. He is enjoying the faster pace of the class, and the conversations with classmates who are more like him.
I know someone is going to mention learning differences, etc. And that is true… to a point. I wholly believe that gifted children are better off in a classroom of their intellectual peers, rather than being singled out of an average classroom.
January 31, 2011 at 1:54 am #715003
SpeakLoudMemberAnd how very nice for you and your ‘smart’ child who isn’t going to fall through any cracks anyway. If there was not seperation he would have been in an ‘average’ class with several other children and he would not have been the only one-plus there would have been assistants in the class to support the children with sepcial needs lowering the ratio for everyone and therfore allowing the teacher to do a better job with EVERYONE.
Segregation is segregation-do we really want to go there?
January 31, 2011 at 2:19 am #715004
GenHillOneParticipantInteresting that you say that, SpeakLoud, because it wasn’t hopey’s concern about someone bringing up learning differences that stuck with me. It was the phrase “with classmates who are more like him” that wasn’t sitting quite right with me.
January 31, 2011 at 3:37 am #715005
valvashonParticipantThe reality for some academically gifted students is that they do need to be in classrooms with classmates who are more like them. My niece was so far out of sync with the other kids academically, she simply had nothing in common with them, which frustrated her socially. My personal belief is that social development is extremely important in the primary grades, so I supported my sister’s search for a classroom with kids that were more like her daughter. Ultimately the solution was to advance her a grade, and now she is thriving.
My son who has tested in to the APP program does not have the social issues his cousin had. Each child is different, so the solution for each will also be different.
January 31, 2011 at 5:17 am #715006
SpeakLoudMemberAh yes but the public school system is only charged with providing an adequate education for all children-NOT making sure that all the kids in their class are just like them-really can you hear yourself when you say this stuff??? A Public Education system SHOULD (and believe me I know Seattle does not) provide adequate education experiences for all children in a classroom or school bulding together-this we’ll serve you here and you there, well your special so you go over here crap is driving me nuts-how is anyone suppossed to learn to get along with anyone or face life without knowing how to deal with LIFE….ooooppps sorry-didn’t mean to go on a tangent but REALLY………………….
January 31, 2011 at 5:22 am #715007
hopeyParticipantMy niece was so far out of sync with the other kids academically, she simply had nothing in common with them, which frustrated her socially.
This was exactly my stepson’s situation in his former school district.
Also, he WAS falling through the cracks. Because it was not a standardized program, he was not receiving enough challenge in the classroom. And neither he nor his average-level peers were receiving any kind of support for the social issues which naturally arose from being labelled as ‘different’ and ‘weird’. His extreme social issues were what drove the change in schools for him.
You are making a WHOLE lot of assumptions about the “support” which is currently available in ‘challenge’ program locations — it is not anywhere near as rosy and perfect as you describe. The ‘challenge’ program schools are suffering from the same budget woes as all the other schools. The extra teaching and social support you describe simply is not there.
I completely disagree with the idea of “clustered” gifted education somehow being a negative and detrimental form of segregation. Different children have different needs, to be certain. However, I stand by my belief that a significant percentage of gifted children have the social issues described by valvashon, and are better served by a clustered gifted program.
January 31, 2011 at 5:25 am #715008
hopeyParticipant@GenHillOne: I am sorry. I had used the phrase “a classroom of intellectual peers” twice already and chose not to repeat the phrase a third time. That is what I meant by “more like him.” Please don’t read so much into it.
January 31, 2011 at 5:33 am #715009
hopeyParticipant@SpeakLoud, sometimes an adequate education can only be provided by grouping children of similar abilities together for their educational experience.
Speaking only for my family, my stepson receives plenty of opportunity to “learn to get along” with children from a variety of backgrounds, in non-classroom school programs as well as out of school.
I am not interested in wasting time wishing for a perfect school system that does not exist. What I have been saying is that I support clustered gifted education. You are of course free to beat your own head against whichever wall or issue you choose.
January 31, 2011 at 5:33 am #715010
GenHillOneParticipantNo, I get it hopey, but SpeakLoud just made the connection for me. I don’t know what the answer is, but we do the same thing to some kids for the opposite reason. It can’t do much for their social skills to know they’re in the “slow class” either. Part of me also really believes that diversity is a fact of life and that the sooner kids learn that everyone is different, the better off we’ll be and maybe (the collective) we won’t spend so much time trying to fit in when we’re younger.
January 31, 2011 at 5:36 am #715011
hopeyParticipant@GenHillOne- I realize you were posting at the same time I was, but to add a somewhat rhetorical question to my comment above: are schools primarily for academic advancement, or are they for learning social skills?
My answer to that question is that academic advancement is primary. If social issues are getting in the way of academic advancement, then do something to resolve the social issues. In this case, clustered education works for many children, both on an academic and social level.
As a parent, it is my job to ensure that my stepson receives other social experiences to ensure that he can get along in society. In my opinion, that is my burden as a parent, not the school’s responsibility.
January 31, 2011 at 7:49 am #715012
valvashonParticipantIt’s oversimplifying to say that all children can be served together in one classroom together, and that’s the end of it. It’s not realistic. Ask a teacher. If you’re the parent of a child who’s disruptive for whatever reason, academically gifted or academically challenged, you’re going to do whatever you can to help your child succeed and to bring order back to the classroom. The school district can’t offer a sampler platter of options at every school, so they group kids together at this school or that, trying to provide services to those that need them on a limited budget. And sometimes this means people have to change schools in order to take advantage of those services.
People act like testing into Spectrum opens up some golden door within the school district. It does not. I sat in a two hour meeting with Arbor Heights parents and a representative from the advanced learning office, and I still can’t tell you how the Spectrum program is being implemented, or will be implemented, in our school. Whether or not the program is up and running at our school is apparently the subject of some debate.
January 31, 2011 at 4:18 pm #715013
cclarueMemberMy child is in spectrum at Madison as a 7 th grader and there is nothing in place for spectrum 7th and 8th graders aside from a few challenge assignments. Only the 6th graders get separation from what I hear. So spectrum at every school isn’t what we thought. It’s too expensive to implement. My child thrives when she is challenged . In this case I am all for segregation because of the no child left behind all the focus is to the lesser achievers so if the schools teach to the lowest common denominator. So where does that leave my child who is more advanced? One teacher can not possibly meet the needs of 28 students with abilities from very low to very high. That is unfair to the teacher and the kids.
February 1, 2011 at 1:39 am #715014
acemotelParticipantOh, for cryin’ out loud. IT’s not the job of these kids to be class assistants, mini-teachers or even role models. They are children just like all the others, and they need to learn at their own speed. It’s one of the misconceptions I HATE about “gifted” students.
Personally, my daughter was in the principal’s office all the time for “acting up” in the regular classroom – as soon as she went to app in 2nd grade, the acting up turned into productive work.
February 1, 2011 at 1:46 am #715015
Genesee HillParticipantI f your child is “so special” send him/her to Lakeside.
February 1, 2011 at 2:08 am #715016
GenHillOneParticipantWho said anything about them being role models? I guess I’m back to my same question. If to ensure equal access to education and productive classroom behavior (i.e. not acting up out of either boredom or frustration) we need to separate students into below-average, average, and above-average classes, how is that physically and financially possible? I’m signing out on this one, with my sincerest apologies to StringCheese, not because I don’t think it’s a valid discussion, but I realize that we’ve gone completely off-topic. I hope you get the info you’re looking for!
February 1, 2011 at 2:23 am #715017
hopeyParticipantI realize I shouldn’t feed the troll, but…
@Genesee Hill: nice assumption there. If I have a smart kid I must be rich and able to afford private school. Gee. If we could afford private school, don’t you think we’d have already opted out of the public school craziness? Or maybe my family actually values a public school education, even with its flaws?
Also, most of this discussion has been about elementary school. As far as I can tell, Lakeside is only Middle and Upper (High) school grades.
Now that I’m done feeding the troll… I agree with GenHillOne that this discussion has gone far enough off topic.
February 1, 2011 at 2:23 am #715018
JustSarahParticipantGenesee Hill, would you make the same comment to a parent of a special-needs child? That s/he should just send that child to a private school?
acemotel is right: it is not a child’s job to be an intellectual role model for other children, but it is every child’s right to receive a quality education.
GenHillOne: post 8 in this thread, by speakloud: “I argue that it is also not ‘best practice’ to remove students who can help other students and model for them…” S/he is saying that gifted children should not be put into a separate academic program because it is best for the “regular” kids to have gifted kids in the classroom.
Some of the defensiveness in this thread is ridiculous; I see no reason for a parent to take so personally another parent’s desire for a more academically rigorous curriculum in a public school setting.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.