The Five Year Plan calls for the district to develop and implement curriculum based on grade level expectations, but what does the district intend to offer for students who are working beyond grade level?

 

Is this what Advanced Learning is for? If so, then shouldn't working beyond grade level be the eligibility criteria for Spectrum? And shouldn't every student be screened? It would be easy enough. Any student who gets two 4's and a 3 in reading, writing, and math on their year-end progress report should be eligible for Spectrum. This works just as well for students in grades K-2, who don't get standardized achievement tests. This is an assessment made by the education professional who knows the student best and is based on a full year of work.

 

Let's remember why we need Spectrum. We need it because in a Standards-based learning system, the Standards, intended in theory as a floor, function in practice as a ceiling. In many schools we're having trouble getting the general education classrooms to teach to the Standard, very few teach beyond it. Students working beyond Standards can't get what they need in a general education classroom. So, if it is the students who are working beyond Standards that need Spectrum, then shouldn't working beyond Standards be the Spectrum eligibility criteria? And isn't a 4 on the year-end progress report evidence of exactly that?

 

Students identified in this way could be allowed a late enrollment opportunity during the summer. They could claim an open seat in a Spectrum class and be in the class when school starts in the fall. Of course, if no seat is available, the student could enroll in the program during the ontime enrollment period for the following year. Students who earn the two 4's and a 3 on an interim progress report could qualify for Spectrum in time for ontime enrollment.

 

As it now stands, the eligibility criteria for Spectrum includes a cognitive ability test and academic achievement test scores. This assessment is made by a total stranger and based on performance on the days the tests are administered. Aside from being expensive and stressfull, these tests have know cultural biases which work against low income and minority students. Instead of every student getting tested, only those who are nominated by their family are tested. That works against finding students from families unaware of the program, culturally discouraged from putting themselves forward, or unfamiliar with negotiating bureaucracies and completing forms.

 

The way it is now, students who score well on a standardized test in the spring of the third grade, can apply for the program in the fall of the fourth grade, take a cognitive ability test that winter, and start in the program in the fall of the fifth grade. That's a long time to wait between identification and service.

 

Let's get rid of the expensive, high-stakes, culturally biased tests for the self-selected few. Let's choose universal screening using measures we already have for all students - measures based on a full year of work including projects and discussion, not just filled-in multiple choice scan sheets. Let's set the eligibility criteria where they should be - working beyond grade level -  instead of some arbitrary percentile ranking of academic achievement and cognitive ability. Why is the line drawn where it is? Is the student in the 89th percentile so different from the student in the 90th percentile? Couldn't a  student who scores 89 on one day score 90 on another and vice versa? Why are we making children ineligible for the program based on their score on some psychometric assessment, when what matters is whether they can do the work? Shouldn't every student who is capable of doing the work have the opportunity to do the work? Isn't anything else a systemic barrier to achievement?

 

Let's bring some reason and rationality to Spectrum eligibility and base it on need rather than an arbitrary ranking. Let's eliminate unnecessary barriers to participation like psychometric assessments, nomination forms, and eligibility committees. Let's choose universal screening and opt-out nomination so we find every student who would benefit from the program. Let's set the eligibility criteria where they belong. Let's make it so students can work their way into the program. Let's end the dependence on expensive, high-stakes tests with know cultural biases.

 

When we set the eligibility criteria for Spectrum where it should be, and when we identify every student who should be in the program, then we will be ready to increase the ethnic diversity in advanced learning.