Importance of classmates being at grade levels for reading/math

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. My children are at L-T. They are well above grade level. Only the older one has had to do standardized testing, but they have never tested below 90% nationwide when such data were indicated, and are typically around 96-98%. They have many peers in the school and are not academically bored. Perhaps most importantly they have strong, stimulating friendships.

For Pre-K I wouldn't even give the matter a second thought, assuming you can get in. For elementary, in the earlier grades I've sometimes had questions whether they were going fast enough for them not to be bored. But just seeing the level that my kids are at right now, despite Covid, removed those questions for me entirely.

There might be a critical mass below which some opportunities are missing, but if so the current L-T student-group is not close to it. (Indeed, I would be more worried about L-T if your kid had learning needs, per the discussion in a different thread.)

Dial it down. You have bright kids testing above grade level, sounds like everything is fine but maybe just dial it down a little bit. Your kids would probably be considered middle of the pack at most high SES suburban schools, and a lot of your perception that they are "way" above grade level stems from being in a school where only 40-60% of kids are at or above grade level. Yes, that's excellent for DCPS and especially for a school that still has a sizable FARMS population. L-T has every reason to be proud. But please understand your kids aren't like super outlier geniuses. It's just that the bar in DCPS is crazy low. Your frame of reference is skewed by the generally low academic standards overall in the district.

WTF. She literally said her kids weren’t outliers at the school. Also, they absolutely would not be middle of the pack at a suburban school; that’s absurd. In an AAP program? Perhaps. But OP has a 15 month old who has absolutely no idea whether her kids will be AAP types or not.

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

I would say that in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math. The kids who peel off are non-randomly distributed UMC-wise and same with new kids who come each year, so 3-5 results only tell part of the story & 5th in particular is not really reflective of the school as a whole.

We don't have to guesstimate, we have the data.

Ludlow Taylor 2021-2022 PARCC results by grade:

Grade 3
Level 1 ELA: 7.55%
Level 2 ELA: 5.66%
Level 3 ELA: 9.43%
Level 4 ELA: 62.26%
Level 5 ELA: 15.09%

Level 1 Math: 13.21%
Level 2 Math: 7.55%
Level 3 Math: 28.30%
Level 4 Math: 32.08%
Level 5 Math: 18.87%

Grade 4
Level 1 ELA: 13.33%
Level 2 ELA: 13.33%
Level 3 ELA: 13.33%
Level 4 ELA: 24.44%
Level 5 ELA: 35.56%

Level 1 Math: DS
Level 2 Math: 20%
Level 3 Math: 22.22%
Level 4 Math: DS
Level 5 Math: DS

Grade 5
Level 1 ELA: DS
Level 2 ELA: DS
Level 3 ELA: 20%
Level 4 ELA: 53.33%
Level 5 ELA: 15.56%

Level 1 Math: 6.67%
Level 2 Math: 22.22%
Level 3 Math: 35.56%
Level 4 Math: 28.89%
Level 5 Math: 6.67%

And no, I don't know what DS stands for, sorry. I know it screws up the Grade 4 numbers but I guess you can kind of fill in the blanks. My takeaway from this is that Ludlow is doing a terrific job of getting kids at or slightly above grade level. The lack of Level 5 scores across the board does not compare favorably with some of the suburban schools I've looked at, or even with elementaries in upper NW, where you expect to see a lot more Level 5 scores. I'd say Ludlow is doing an awesome job with a diverse student body, but also that scores likely tend to mostly reflect the SES of the families in question.

Which, to relate back to OP's question, indicates that if you stay on the Hill at a school like L-T (and you'd be lucky to be at L-T compared to many other schools in Ward 6!), your child will have a good number of peers at or above grade level, but probably fewer peers well above grade level as you might see in other schools where both the school and the family base is extremely well-resourced. Now, I personally think there are huge benefits to being in a school where not everyone has wealthy parents who watch their child's national percentages like a hawk, so I'd actually argue that L-T is offering the best of both worlds, meeting the needs of high performers, doing a good job moving low performers up to grade level, and also giving children an experience that isn't in some little bubble of privilege. This is one of many reasons I prefer public schools to private.

However, I think the claims in the last few pages that a significant number of L-T students are testing "well above" grade level are hyperbole and reflect maybe some of the hopes and dreams of the posters for their kids, and not facts. I'd also argue that you can't just drop the Grade 5 results as though they don't matter, because there is no guarantee that your child would get into a charter for Grade 5, or a private, or that you'd move. So if you are considering public schools on the Hill, you need to factor in that Grade 5 experience as though you will be part of it, and also factor in Middle Schools. If you find the Grade 5 results unacceptable, or if you find the Stuart Hobson unacceptable, I'd argue that L-T is probably not the best place for you.

I think you missed the PP's point in that they were guesstimating stats for the whole school -- explicitly not just 3-5. When you're considering the peers your kid will have, you don't just care about 3-5, especially when there's a very good chance you'll leave after 4th. I don't think the Grade 5 results are unacceptable, I just don't tell anything close to 1/3rd of the story of your kid's experience over 7-8 years, which if you just look at the PARCC average, is what you're doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread kind of makes me jealous of the vast majority of American parents who just enroll their kids in their suburban boundary school because that’s what’s available to them. Though I realize it’s a double edge sword, if those schools don’t work for their kid, most parents do not have another option. Moving or private school aren’t realistic to most of our country, where in the DC UMC it seems almost like a given if things aren’t working out.

it is extremely coming throughout the rest of the country for parents to choose where they live specifically for the school their home is zoned for. Yes, they just send their kid to the local school, but they didn’t randomly end up where they did.

DC seems to be full of more oblivious parents who wake up one day and realize the house they bought with the great walk to all the bars and coffee shops is zoned for a terrible school.

I see this opinion on here often and I don't get it. In some cases good schools are "a great walk to all the bars and coffee shops." In other instances, people bought homes before they had kids or even knew if they wanted to have kids, so didn't prioritize schools (and didn't great metrics for evaluating them even if they did). Sometimes people buy homes believing the IB school to be good, only to attend for ECE and discover it's not at all right for their kid. Some people rent, and/or can't afford to live in-bound for better schools. Some people bought knowing the schools were bad but believed they would be able to move before it was an issue, only to run into issues (a job loss, Covid, home not appreciating well while homes in more desired school boundaries shooting up in price, etc.).

I know you think you are really owning all the families in DC who have poor IB schools that happen to be near a coffee shop or bar they enjoy going too, but you just wind up coming off incredibly ignorant. You seem to think there are large numbers of people who can buy wherever they want but choose homes in "hip" neighborhoods with bad schools just because they are stupid and oblivious. It's not happening. In fact, one of the things that happens is that a bunch of people buy homes in "hip" neighborhoods and then the schools get a lot better -- see the aforementioned Ludlow Taylor, and Maury, among others.

I'm sorry your upper NW neighborhood or suburb has so few good businesses to walk to, but at least your schools are good.

My comment was a response to the obliviousness of thinking “people just sent their kids to the local school and don’t have to worry.” No, many, many people chose where they live specifically for the school, not proximity to Big Bear or Wonderland.

My home is not anywhere near Big Bear or Wonderland, bars I haven't been to in 10+ years, well before I had kids. And yet... I still stress about school quality. It's almost like there isn't a direct correlation between schools and hipster bars.

I think you are just mad at people who have time to go out to bars? I mean, me too I guess, I'm a parent and I feel like I never get to do anything fun sometimes. It just truly has nothing to do with this conversation.

Only in DC have I ever heard “we just bought a house before we had kids and didn’t realize the schools were bad.”

Oh please. I bought a house before kids, in a place where schools are bad, ON PURPOSE for investment reasons. How is anyone to know how long it will take them to become a parent anyway? I was not up for a long commute to some supposedly great school district when I didn't even have a kid and it's 5+ years until they attend that supposedly wonderful school anyway. Not worth that kind of commute for 5 years.

Years passed, I had kids, the schools are better than they were, and I'll cash out whenever the time comes to move.

You know, if something doesn’t apply to you, you can just move along.

[Anonymous]

I think one of the reasons that people come on this forum to talk about school quality is that in many places with borderline schools the cheerleader parents in the neighborhood will just tell you how great they are and tell you that if people disagree it is just because they are racist. And you believe them. And then you buy a house and realize the schools were not what others had led you to believe. So, when these questions come up on this forum, you try to provide objective advice to help people out.

[Anonymous]

As a 3rd grade teacher, it is very important. Schools need to go back to where the low kids are in one class, on grade level in one class. Then high flyers in another class. Mingling the kids all together in core class is horrible. I teach reading and have children in my class that can not read the word cat. Wtf am I supposed to do with these kids besides babysit them? Sure, they have an IEP but guess what, that does not help them read. It just makes me dumb down the curriculum so that they have no choice but to get the right answer with no effort. These students are lost in whole group lessons. I am then teaching pre k standards with them during small groups. No one wants to work with them as partners. My high students have to sit through lessons that they already know naturally. We can never go in depth with them because we have to hit the breaks for the students that just never get it. They are then left to monitor and teach other kids in the class. Public school is a joke because the focus is on inclusive and social emotional but not academics. Bring that old school back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. My children are at L-T. They are well above grade level. Only the older one has had to do standardized testing, but they have never tested below 90% nationwide when such data were indicated, and are typically around 96-98%. They have many peers in the school and are not academically bored. Perhaps most importantly they have strong, stimulating friendships.

For Pre-K I wouldn't even give the matter a second thought, assuming you can get in. For elementary, in the earlier grades I've sometimes had questions whether they were going fast enough for them not to be bored. But just seeing the level that my kids are at right now, despite Covid, removed those questions for me entirely.

There might be a critical mass below which some opportunities are missing, but if so the current L-T student-group is not close to it. (Indeed, I would be more worried about L-T if your kid had learning needs, per the discussion in a different thread.)

Dial it down. You have bright kids testing above grade level, sounds like everything is fine but maybe just dial it down a little bit. Your kids would probably be considered middle of the pack at most high SES suburban schools, and a lot of your perception that they are "way" above grade level stems from being in a school where only 40-60% of kids are at or above grade level. Yes, that's excellent for DCPS and especially for a school that still has a sizable FARMS population. L-T has every reason to be proud. But please understand your kids aren't like super outlier geniuses. It's just that the bar in DCPS is crazy low. Your frame of reference is skewed by the generally low academic standards overall in the district.

WTF. She literally said her kids weren’t outliers at the school. Also, they absolutely would not be middle of the pack at a suburban school; that’s absurd. In an AAP program? Perhaps. But OP has a 15 month old who has absolutely no idea whether her kids will be AAP types or not.

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

I would say that in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math. The kids who peel off are non-randomly distributed UMC-wise and same with new kids who come each year, so 3-5 results only tell part of the story & 5th in particular is not really reflective of the school as a whole.

We don't have to guesstimate, we have the data.

Ludlow Taylor 2021-2022 PARCC results by grade:

Grade 3
Level 1 ELA: 7.55%
Level 2 ELA: 5.66%
Level 3 ELA: 9.43%
Level 4 ELA: 62.26%
Level 5 ELA: 15.09%

Level 1 Math: 13.21%
Level 2 Math: 7.55%
Level 3 Math: 28.30%
Level 4 Math: 32.08%
Level 5 Math: 18.87%

Grade 4
Level 1 ELA: 13.33%
Level 2 ELA: 13.33%
Level 3 ELA: 13.33%
Level 4 ELA: 24.44%
Level 5 ELA: 35.56%

Level 1 Math: DS
Level 2 Math: 20%
Level 3 Math: 22.22%
Level 4 Math: DS
Level 5 Math: DS

Grade 5
Level 1 ELA: DS
Level 2 ELA: DS
Level 3 ELA: 20%
Level 4 ELA: 53.33%
Level 5 ELA: 15.56%

Level 1 Math: 6.67%
Level 2 Math: 22.22%
Level 3 Math: 35.56%
Level 4 Math: 28.89%
Level 5 Math: 6.67%

And no, I don't know what DS stands for, sorry. I know it screws up the Grade 4 numbers but I guess you can kind of fill in the blanks. My takeaway from this is that Ludlow is doing a terrific job of getting kids at or slightly above grade level. The lack of Level 5 scores across the board does not compare favorably with some of the suburban schools I've looked at, or even with elementaries in upper NW, where you expect to see a lot more Level 5 scores. I'd say Ludlow is doing an awesome job with a diverse student body, but also that scores likely tend to mostly reflect the SES of the families in question.

Which, to relate back to OP's question, indicates that if you stay on the Hill at a school like L-T (and you'd be lucky to be at L-T compared to many other schools in Ward 6!), your child will have a good number of peers at or above grade level, but probably fewer peers well above grade level as you might see in other schools where both the school and the family base is extremely well-resourced. Now, I personally think there are huge benefits to being in a school where not everyone has wealthy parents who watch their child's national percentages like a hawk, so I'd actually argue that L-T is offering the best of both worlds, meeting the needs of high performers, doing a good job moving low performers up to grade level, and also giving children an experience that isn't in some little bubble of privilege. This is one of many reasons I prefer public schools to private.

However, I think the claims in the last few pages that a significant number of L-T students are testing "well above" grade level are hyperbole and reflect maybe some of the hopes and dreams of the posters for their kids, and not facts. I'd also argue that you can't just drop the Grade 5 results as though they don't matter, because there is no guarantee that your child would get into a charter for Grade 5, or a private, or that you'd move. So if you are considering public schools on the Hill, you need to factor in that Grade 5 experience as though you will be part of it, and also factor in Middle Schools. If you find the Grade 5 results unacceptable, or if you find the Stuart Hobson unacceptable, I'd argue that L-T is probably not the best place for you.

I think you missed the PP's point in that they were guesstimating stats for the whole school -- explicitly not just 3-5. When you're considering the peers your kid will have, you don't just care about 3-5, especially when there's a very good chance you'll leave after 4th. I don't think the Grade 5 results are unacceptable, I just don't tell anything close to 1/3rd of the story of your kid's experience over 7-8 years, which if you just look at the PARCC average, is what you're doing.

Why would you think PK3-2nd would be substantially different peers than 3rd? These are the same kids.

The PP said "in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math." That's not true. Don't get me wrong, L-T's scores are GREAT. Not a knock on L-T at all.

The point, though, is that guesstimates of grade level based on your "sense" of your kid's class aren't great. The OP is asking about the impact of having a lot of kids below grade level in a classroom, assuming your child is at or above grade level. If this is something that matters to you, don't go by the broad perceptions of parents with kids at the school. Look at the numbers. L-T has a lot more kids at or above grade level than many other elementaries in Ward 6. It has fewer kids testing well above grade level than in some other DCPS elementaries and in some suburban districts. That's the data point. If grade level of the peer set is really important to you, make your decision based on actual data, not vague estimates, which as we see here, tend to be inaccurate. I would not have expected these to be the testing numbers based on the PPs' comments about L-T -- I would have expected to see a lot more 4s and 5s, especially in Grade 4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think one of the reasons that people come on this forum to talk about school quality is that in many places with borderline schools the cheerleader parents in the neighborhood will just tell you how great they are and tell you that if people disagree it is just because they are racist. And you believe them. And then you buy a house and realize the schools were not what others had led you to believe. So, when these questions come up on this forum, you try to provide objective advice to help people out.

This. I also think in DC one of the reasons you see a lot of people expressing dissatisfaction with schools, especially DCPS, is that they often enter these schools in PK3. PK in DCPS is pretty universally great. Things can change a lot at K, but by the time you realize that, you've been at the school for more than 2 years. The scales fall from your eyes and you realize that you should have prioritized other things when looking at schools. But your kid was 2 when you started looking at schools (or 15 months, like OP). You didn't know what you didn't know, including what kind of student your child was going to be.

[Anonymous]

My kids are in the suburbs, both are bright, but their birthdays fall +/- 6 weeks from the age cutoff. This means I have experience observing 2 kids learning to read - one who is the youngest in his grade, sometimes by 15 months, and another who is close to the oldest in his grade with only a few red-shirted summer BDs older than him.

If you are engaged and supporting your child at home, the range of skills in the classroom in lower elementary is not as important as the behavior in the classroom. Both of my kids are technically ahead, but k-3rd, we tell them it’s important to have a good foundation and that they may cover things they already know at school, but maybe they will learn a different way to approach the same problem. We tell them they are adding tools to their toolbox and neither has ever said they are bored. Their school’s % on grade level may be lower than other schools nearby because they have a lot of State Dept and diplomatic families that are transitory and a high % of English language learners. The test scores reflect that. My older child is in a mixed gifted/mainstream/special ed class and and he is benefiting from the mixed environment, not suffering. However the teacher has good support in terms of aids and good control of the classroom. Last year his teacher was fluent in Spanish, so he had a mixed classroom where 1/3 were ESL. Behavior issues and disruptions have not been an issue and I think that’s the key to a successful classroom with a mix of levels.

It is public school - so it’s important to have a reasonable expectation of how much individual attention your child will receive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. My children are at L-T. They are well above grade level. Only the older one has had to do standardized testing, but they have never tested below 90% nationwide when such data were indicated, and are typically around 96-98%. They have many peers in the school and are not academically bored. Perhaps most importantly they have strong, stimulating friendships.

For Pre-K I wouldn't even give the matter a second thought, assuming you can get in. For elementary, in the earlier grades I've sometimes had questions whether they were going fast enough for them not to be bored. But just seeing the level that my kids are at right now, despite Covid, removed those questions for me entirely.

There might be a critical mass below which some opportunities are missing, but if so the current L-T student-group is not close to it. (Indeed, I would be more worried about L-T if your kid had learning needs, per the discussion in a different thread.)

Dial it down. You have bright kids testing above grade level, sounds like everything is fine but maybe just dial it down a little bit. Your kids would probably be considered middle of the pack at most high SES suburban schools, and a lot of your perception that they are "way" above grade level stems from being in a school where only 40-60% of kids are at or above grade level. Yes, that's excellent for DCPS and especially for a school that still has a sizable FARMS population. L-T has every reason to be proud. But please understand your kids aren't like super outlier geniuses. It's just that the bar in DCPS is crazy low. Your frame of reference is skewed by the generally low academic standards overall in the district.

WTF. She literally said her kids weren’t outliers at the school. Also, they absolutely would not be middle of the pack at a suburban school; that’s absurd. In an AAP program? Perhaps. But OP has a 15 month old who has absolutely no idea whether her kids will be AAP types or not.

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

I would say that in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math. The kids who peel off are non-randomly distributed UMC-wise and same with new kids who come each year, so 3-5 results only tell part of the story & 5th in particular is not really reflective of the school as a whole.

We don't have to guesstimate, we have the data.

Ludlow Taylor 2021-2022 PARCC results by grade:

Grade 3
Level 1 ELA: 7.55%
Level 2 ELA: 5.66%
Level 3 ELA: 9.43%
Level 4 ELA: 62.26%
Level 5 ELA: 15.09%

Level 1 Math: 13.21%
Level 2 Math: 7.55%
Level 3 Math: 28.30%
Level 4 Math: 32.08%
Level 5 Math: 18.87%

Grade 4
Level 1 ELA: 13.33%
Level 2 ELA: 13.33%
Level 3 ELA: 13.33%
Level 4 ELA: 24.44%
Level 5 ELA: 35.56%

Level 1 Math: DS
Level 2 Math: 20%
Level 3 Math: 22.22%
Level 4 Math: DS
Level 5 Math: DS

Grade 5
Level 1 ELA: DS
Level 2 ELA: DS
Level 3 ELA: 20%
Level 4 ELA: 53.33%
Level 5 ELA: 15.56%

Level 1 Math: 6.67%
Level 2 Math: 22.22%
Level 3 Math: 35.56%
Level 4 Math: 28.89%
Level 5 Math: 6.67%

And no, I don't know what DS stands for, sorry. I know it screws up the Grade 4 numbers but I guess you can kind of fill in the blanks. My takeaway from this is that Ludlow is doing a terrific job of getting kids at or slightly above grade level. The lack of Level 5 scores across the board does not compare favorably with some of the suburban schools I've looked at, or even with elementaries in upper NW, where you expect to see a lot more Level 5 scores. I'd say Ludlow is doing an awesome job with a diverse student body, but also that scores likely tend to mostly reflect the SES of the families in question.

Which, to relate back to OP's question, indicates that if you stay on the Hill at a school like L-T (and you'd be lucky to be at L-T compared to many other schools in Ward 6!), your child will have a good number of peers at or above grade level, but probably fewer peers well above grade level as you might see in other schools where both the school and the family base is extremely well-resourced. Now, I personally think there are huge benefits to being in a school where not everyone has wealthy parents who watch their child's national percentages like a hawk, so I'd actually argue that L-T is offering the best of both worlds, meeting the needs of high performers, doing a good job moving low performers up to grade level, and also giving children an experience that isn't in some little bubble of privilege. This is one of many reasons I prefer public schools to private.

However, I think the claims in the last few pages that a significant number of L-T students are testing "well above" grade level are hyperbole and reflect maybe some of the hopes and dreams of the posters for their kids, and not facts. I'd also argue that you can't just drop the Grade 5 results as though they don't matter, because there is no guarantee that your child would get into a charter for Grade 5, or a private, or that you'd move. So if you are considering public schools on the Hill, you need to factor in that Grade 5 experience as though you will be part of it, and also factor in Middle Schools. If you find the Grade 5 results unacceptable, or if you find the Stuart Hobson unacceptable, I'd argue that L-T is probably not the best place for you.

I think you missed the PP's point in that they were guesstimating stats for the whole school -- explicitly not just 3-5. When you're considering the peers your kid will have, you don't just care about 3-5, especially when there's a very good chance you'll leave after 4th. I don't think the Grade 5 results are unacceptable, I just don't tell anything close to 1/3rd of the story of your kid's experience over 7-8 years, which if you just look at the PARCC average, is what you're doing.

Why would you think PK3-2nd would be substantially different peers than 3rd? These are the same kids.

The PP said "in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math." That's not true. Don't get me wrong, L-T's scores are GREAT. Not a knock on L-T at all.

The point, though, is that guesstimates of grade level based on your "sense" of your kid's class aren't great. The OP is asking about the impact of having a lot of kids below grade level in a classroom, assuming your child is at or above grade level. If this is something that matters to you, don't go by the broad perceptions of parents with kids at the school. Look at the numbers. L-T has a lot more kids at or above grade level than many other elementaries in Ward 6. It has fewer kids testing well above grade level than in some other DCPS elementaries and in some suburban districts. That's the data point. If grade level of the peer set is really important to you, make your decision based on actual data, not vague estimates, which as we see here, tend to be inaccurate. I would not have expected these to be the testing numbers based on the PPs' comments about L-T -- I would have expected to see a lot more 4s and 5s, especially in Grade 4.

Sorry, you don’t understand that gentrifying schools especially have different average populations in PK v 4th? I can’t take anything you say seriously any more. FWIW my guesstimates are pretty accurate to the extent that internal school data is meaningful, because this is all publicly shared at LT during LSAT meetings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. My children are at L-T. They are well above grade level. Only the older one has had to do standardized testing, but they have never tested below 90% nationwide when such data were indicated, and are typically around 96-98%. They have many peers in the school and are not academically bored. Perhaps most importantly they have strong, stimulating friendships.

For Pre-K I wouldn't even give the matter a second thought, assuming you can get in. For elementary, in the earlier grades I've sometimes had questions whether they were going fast enough for them not to be bored. But just seeing the level that my kids are at right now, despite Covid, removed those questions for me entirely.

There might be a critical mass below which some opportunities are missing, but if so the current L-T student-group is not close to it. (Indeed, I would be more worried about L-T if your kid had learning needs, per the discussion in a different thread.)

Dial it down. You have bright kids testing above grade level, sounds like everything is fine but maybe just dial it down a little bit. Your kids would probably be considered middle of the pack at most high SES suburban schools, and a lot of your perception that they are "way" above grade level stems from being in a school where only 40-60% of kids are at or above grade level. Yes, that's excellent for DCPS and especially for a school that still has a sizable FARMS population. L-T has every reason to be proud. But please understand your kids aren't like super outlier geniuses. It's just that the bar in DCPS is crazy low. Your frame of reference is skewed by the generally low academic standards overall in the district.

WTF. She literally said her kids weren’t outliers at the school. Also, they absolutely would not be middle of the pack at a suburban school; that’s absurd. In an AAP program? Perhaps. But OP has a 15 month old who has absolutely no idea whether her kids will be AAP types or not.

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

I would say that in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math. The kids who peel off are non-randomly distributed UMC-wise and same with new kids who come each year, so 3-5 results only tell part of the story & 5th in particular is not really reflective of the school as a whole.

We don't have to guesstimate, we have the data.

Ludlow Taylor 2021-2022 PARCC results by grade:

Grade 3
Level 1 ELA: 7.55%
Level 2 ELA: 5.66%
Level 3 ELA: 9.43%
Level 4 ELA: 62.26%
Level 5 ELA: 15.09%

Level 1 Math: 13.21%
Level 2 Math: 7.55%
Level 3 Math: 28.30%
Level 4 Math: 32.08%
Level 5 Math: 18.87%

Grade 4
Level 1 ELA: 13.33%
Level 2 ELA: 13.33%
Level 3 ELA: 13.33%
Level 4 ELA: 24.44%
Level 5 ELA: 35.56%

Level 1 Math: DS
Level 2 Math: 20%
Level 3 Math: 22.22%
Level 4 Math: DS
Level 5 Math: DS

Grade 5
Level 1 ELA: DS
Level 2 ELA: DS
Level 3 ELA: 20%
Level 4 ELA: 53.33%
Level 5 ELA: 15.56%

Level 1 Math: 6.67%
Level 2 Math: 22.22%
Level 3 Math: 35.56%
Level 4 Math: 28.89%
Level 5 Math: 6.67%

And no, I don't know what DS stands for, sorry. I know it screws up the Grade 4 numbers but I guess you can kind of fill in the blanks. My takeaway from this is that Ludlow is doing a terrific job of getting kids at or slightly above grade level. The lack of Level 5 scores across the board does not compare favorably with some of the suburban schools I've looked at, or even with elementaries in upper NW, where you expect to see a lot more Level 5 scores. I'd say Ludlow is doing an awesome job with a diverse student body, but also that scores likely tend to mostly reflect the SES of the families in question.

Which, to relate back to OP's question, indicates that if you stay on the Hill at a school like L-T (and you'd be lucky to be at L-T compared to many other schools in Ward 6!), your child will have a good number of peers at or above grade level, but probably fewer peers well above grade level as you might see in other schools where both the school and the family base is extremely well-resourced. Now, I personally think there are huge benefits to being in a school where not everyone has wealthy parents who watch their child's national percentages like a hawk, so I'd actually argue that L-T is offering the best of both worlds, meeting the needs of high performers, doing a good job moving low performers up to grade level, and also giving children an experience that isn't in some little bubble of privilege. This is one of many reasons I prefer public schools to private.

However, I think the claims in the last few pages that a significant number of L-T students are testing "well above" grade level are hyperbole and reflect maybe some of the hopes and dreams of the posters for their kids, and not facts. I'd also argue that you can't just drop the Grade 5 results as though they don't matter, because there is no guarantee that your child would get into a charter for Grade 5, or a private, or that you'd move. So if you are considering public schools on the Hill, you need to factor in that Grade 5 experience as though you will be part of it, and also factor in Middle Schools. If you find the Grade 5 results unacceptable, or if you find the Stuart Hobson unacceptable, I'd argue that L-T is probably not the best place for you.

I think you missed the PP's point in that they were guesstimating stats for the whole school -- explicitly not just 3-5. When you're considering the peers your kid will have, you don't just care about 3-5, especially when there's a very good chance you'll leave after 4th. I don't think the Grade 5 results are unacceptable, I just don't tell anything close to 1/3rd of the story of your kid's experience over 7-8 years, which if you just look at the PARCC average, is what you're doing.

Why would you think PK3-2nd would be substantially different peers than 3rd? These are the same kids.

The PP said "in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math." That's not true. Don't get me wrong, L-T's scores are GREAT. Not a knock on L-T at all.

The point, though, is that guesstimates of grade level based on your "sense" of your kid's class aren't great. The OP is asking about the impact of having a lot of kids below grade level in a classroom, assuming your child is at or above grade level. If this is something that matters to you, don't go by the broad perceptions of parents with kids at the school. Look at the numbers. L-T has a lot more kids at or above grade level than many other elementaries in Ward 6. It has fewer kids testing well above grade level than in some other DCPS elementaries and in some suburban districts. That's the data point. If grade level of the peer set is really important to you, make your decision based on actual data, not vague estimates, which as we see here, tend to be inaccurate. I would not have expected these to be the testing numbers based on the PPs' comments about L-T -- I would have expected to see a lot more 4s and 5s, especially in Grade 4.

Sorry, you don’t understand that gentrifying schools especially have different average populations in PK v 4th? I can’t take anything you say seriously any more. FWIW my guesstimates are pretty accurate to the extent that internal school data is meaningful, because this is all publicly shared at LT during LSAT meetings.

Also, to be clear, the PARCC results for ELA 3-5 were about 70% on or above grade level, so I question why you would feel confident in saying that the average for the whole school wasn’t 75-80%, which is a relatively minimal increase and totally logical given the average departing kid from PK up being higher SES than the average incoming kid + the 5th grade 50% of all good students leave phenomenon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. My children are at L-T. They are well above grade level. Only the older one has had to do standardized testing, but they have never tested below 90% nationwide when such data were indicated, and are typically around 96-98%. They have many peers in the school and are not academically bored. Perhaps most importantly they have strong, stimulating friendships.

For Pre-K I wouldn't even give the matter a second thought, assuming you can get in. For elementary, in the earlier grades I've sometimes had questions whether they were going fast enough for them not to be bored. But just seeing the level that my kids are at right now, despite Covid, removed those questions for me entirely.

There might be a critical mass below which some opportunities are missing, but if so the current L-T student-group is not close to it. (Indeed, I would be more worried about L-T if your kid had learning needs, per the discussion in a different thread.)

Dial it down. You have bright kids testing above grade level, sounds like everything is fine but maybe just dial it down a little bit. Your kids would probably be considered middle of the pack at most high SES suburban schools, and a lot of your perception that they are "way" above grade level stems from being in a school where only 40-60% of kids are at or above grade level. Yes, that's excellent for DCPS and especially for a school that still has a sizable FARMS population. L-T has every reason to be proud. But please understand your kids aren't like super outlier geniuses. It's just that the bar in DCPS is crazy low. Your frame of reference is skewed by the generally low academic standards overall in the district.

WTF. She literally said her kids weren’t outliers at the school. Also, they absolutely would not be middle of the pack at a suburban school; that’s absurd. In an AAP program? Perhaps. But OP has a 15 month old who has absolutely no idea whether her kids will be AAP types or not.

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

I would say that in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math. The kids who peel off are non-randomly distributed UMC-wise and same with new kids who come each year, so 3-5 results only tell part of the story & 5th in particular is not really reflective of the school as a whole.

We don't have to guesstimate, we have the data.

Ludlow Taylor 2021-2022 PARCC results by grade:

Grade 3
Level 1 ELA: 7.55%
Level 2 ELA: 5.66%
Level 3 ELA: 9.43%
Level 4 ELA: 62.26%
Level 5 ELA: 15.09%

Level 1 Math: 13.21%
Level 2 Math: 7.55%
Level 3 Math: 28.30%
Level 4 Math: 32.08%
Level 5 Math: 18.87%

Grade 4
Level 1 ELA: 13.33%
Level 2 ELA: 13.33%
Level 3 ELA: 13.33%
Level 4 ELA: 24.44%
Level 5 ELA: 35.56%

Level 1 Math: DS
Level 2 Math: 20%
Level 3 Math: 22.22%
Level 4 Math: DS
Level 5 Math: DS

Grade 5
Level 1 ELA: DS
Level 2 ELA: DS
Level 3 ELA: 20%
Level 4 ELA: 53.33%
Level 5 ELA: 15.56%

Level 1 Math: 6.67%
Level 2 Math: 22.22%
Level 3 Math: 35.56%
Level 4 Math: 28.89%
Level 5 Math: 6.67%

And no, I don't know what DS stands for, sorry. I know it screws up the Grade 4 numbers but I guess you can kind of fill in the blanks. My takeaway from this is that Ludlow is doing a terrific job of getting kids at or slightly above grade level. The lack of Level 5 scores across the board does not compare favorably with some of the suburban schools I've looked at, or even with elementaries in upper NW, where you expect to see a lot more Level 5 scores. I'd say Ludlow is doing an awesome job with a diverse student body, but also that scores likely tend to mostly reflect the SES of the families in question.

Which, to relate back to OP's question, indicates that if you stay on the Hill at a school like L-T (and you'd be lucky to be at L-T compared to many other schools in Ward 6!), your child will have a good number of peers at or above grade level, but probably fewer peers well above grade level as you might see in other schools where both the school and the family base is extremely well-resourced. Now, I personally think there are huge benefits to being in a school where not everyone has wealthy parents who watch their child's national percentages like a hawk, so I'd actually argue that L-T is offering the best of both worlds, meeting the needs of high performers, doing a good job moving low performers up to grade level, and also giving children an experience that isn't in some little bubble of privilege. This is one of many reasons I prefer public schools to private.

However, I think the claims in the last few pages that a significant number of L-T students are testing "well above" grade level are hyperbole and reflect maybe some of the hopes and dreams of the posters for their kids, and not facts. I'd also argue that you can't just drop the Grade 5 results as though they don't matter, because there is no guarantee that your child would get into a charter for Grade 5, or a private, or that you'd move. So if you are considering public schools on the Hill, you need to factor in that Grade 5 experience as though you will be part of it, and also factor in Middle Schools. If you find the Grade 5 results unacceptable, or if you find the Stuart Hobson unacceptable, I'd argue that L-T is probably not the best place for you.

I think you missed the PP's point in that they were guesstimating stats for the whole school -- explicitly not just 3-5. When you're considering the peers your kid will have, you don't just care about 3-5, especially when there's a very good chance you'll leave after 4th. I don't think the Grade 5 results are unacceptable, I just don't tell anything close to 1/3rd of the story of your kid's experience over 7-8 years, which if you just look at the PARCC average, is what you're doing.

Why would you think PK3-2nd would be substantially different peers than 3rd? These are the same kids.

The PP said "in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math." That's not true. Don't get me wrong, L-T's scores are GREAT. Not a knock on L-T at all.

The point, though, is that guesstimates of grade level based on your "sense" of your kid's class aren't great. The OP is asking about the impact of having a lot of kids below grade level in a classroom, assuming your child is at or above grade level. If this is something that matters to you, don't go by the broad perceptions of parents with kids at the school. Look at the numbers. L-T has a lot more kids at or above grade level than many other elementaries in Ward 6. It has fewer kids testing well above grade level than in some other DCPS elementaries and in some suburban districts. That's the data point. If grade level of the peer set is really important to you, make your decision based on actual data, not vague estimates, which as we see here, tend to be inaccurate. I would not have expected these to be the testing numbers based on the PPs' comments about L-T -- I would have expected to see a lot more 4s and 5s, especially in Grade 4.

I’m grade 4 ELA, over 1/3rd of kids got 5s. Am I missing how that’s not a substantial cohort or remotely conflicts with the PP’s comments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a 3rd grade teacher, it is very important. Schools need to go back to where the low kids are in one class, on grade level in one class. Then high flyers in another class. Mingling the kids all together in core class is horrible. I teach reading and have children in my class that can not read the word cat. Wtf am I supposed to do with these kids besides babysit them? Sure, they have an IEP but guess what, that does not help them read. It just makes me dumb down the curriculum so that they have no choice but to get the right answer with no effort. These students are lost in whole group lessons. I am then teaching pre k standards with them during small groups. No one wants to work with them as partners. My high students have to sit through lessons that they already know naturally. We can never go in depth with them because we have to hit the breaks for the students that just never get it. They are then left to monitor and teach other kids in the class. Public school is a joke because the focus is on inclusive and social emotional but not academics. Bring that old school back!

I really hope you’re lying about being a teacher, but in case you’re not, please quit. The way you’re speaking and the words you’re using are horrendous. Stop doing whole group lessons and do small group rotations based on need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
For sure, middle school years are challenging. But so far we've made it work, and I have not regretted it. (But, you know, maybe I'll regret it in high school. Who knows.)

OP here--curious how you made the middle school years work.

Thanks everyone who has taken the time to post thoughtful comments/responses--very informative. We have not made up our minds on anything as we are totally new to this and exploring all options. It is really valuable hearing the perspectives of all of you who have experienced DCPS. Again, a big thank you to all of you!

We made it work the usual way: kids are in charters, we are doing some supplementing at home, they are involved in serious extracurricular activities. So far, everyone still prefers to live here. I'm always open to change, however. We're not a very top-down household.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
For sure, middle school years are challenging. But so far we've made it work, and I have not regretted it. (But, you know, maybe I'll regret it in high school. Who knows.)

OP here--curious how you made the middle school years work.

Thanks everyone who has taken the time to post thoughtful comments/responses--very informative. We have not made up our minds on anything as we are totally new to this and exploring all options. It is really valuable hearing the perspectives of all of you who have experienced DCPS. Again, a big thank you to all of you!

We made it work the usual way: kids are in charters, we are doing some supplementing at home, they are involved in serious extracurricular activities. So far, everyone still prefers to live here. I'm always open to change, however. We're not a very top-down household.

I have friends with kids in Fairfax's gifted program. They also supplement at home and are involved in serious extracurricular activities. There is no escaping this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. My children are at L-T. They are well above grade level. Only the older one has had to do standardized testing, but they have never tested below 90% nationwide when such data were indicated, and are typically around 96-98%. They have many peers in the school and are not academically bored. Perhaps most importantly they have strong, stimulating friendships.

For Pre-K I wouldn't even give the matter a second thought, assuming you can get in. For elementary, in the earlier grades I've sometimes had questions whether they were going fast enough for them not to be bored. But just seeing the level that my kids are at right now, despite Covid, removed those questions for me entirely.

There might be a critical mass below which some opportunities are missing, but if so the current L-T student-group is not close to it. (Indeed, I would be more worried about L-T if your kid had learning needs, per the discussion in a different thread.)

Dial it down. You have bright kids testing above grade level, sounds like everything is fine but maybe just dial it down a little bit. Your kids would probably be considered middle of the pack at most high SES suburban schools, and a lot of your perception that they are "way" above grade level stems from being in a school where only 40-60% of kids are at or above grade level. Yes, that's excellent for DCPS and especially for a school that still has a sizable FARMS population. L-T has every reason to be proud. But please understand your kids aren't like super outlier geniuses. It's just that the bar in DCPS is crazy low. Your frame of reference is skewed by the generally low academic standards overall in the district.

WTF. She literally said her kids weren’t outliers at the school. Also, they absolutely would not be middle of the pack at a suburban school; that’s absurd. In an AAP program? Perhaps. But OP has a 15 month old who has absolutely no idea whether her kids will be AAP types or not.

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

I would say that in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math. The kids who peel off are non-randomly distributed UMC-wise and same with new kids who come each year, so 3-5 results only tell part of the story & 5th in particular is not really reflective of the school as a whole.

We don't have to guesstimate, we have the data.

Ludlow Taylor 2021-2022 PARCC results by grade:

Grade 3
Level 1 ELA: 7.55%
Level 2 ELA: 5.66%
Level 3 ELA: 9.43%
Level 4 ELA: 62.26%
Level 5 ELA: 15.09%

Level 1 Math: 13.21%
Level 2 Math: 7.55%
Level 3 Math: 28.30%
Level 4 Math: 32.08%
Level 5 Math: 18.87%

Grade 4
Level 1 ELA: 13.33%
Level 2 ELA: 13.33%
Level 3 ELA: 13.33%
Level 4 ELA: 24.44%
Level 5 ELA: 35.56%

Level 1 Math: DS
Level 2 Math: 20%
Level 3 Math: 22.22%
Level 4 Math: DS
Level 5 Math: DS

Grade 5
Level 1 ELA: DS
Level 2 ELA: DS
Level 3 ELA: 20%
Level 4 ELA: 53.33%
Level 5 ELA: 15.56%

Level 1 Math: 6.67%
Level 2 Math: 22.22%
Level 3 Math: 35.56%
Level 4 Math: 28.89%
Level 5 Math: 6.67%

And no, I don't know what DS stands for, sorry. I know it screws up the Grade 4 numbers but I guess you can kind of fill in the blanks. My takeaway from this is that Ludlow is doing a terrific job of getting kids at or slightly above grade level. The lack of Level 5 scores across the board does not compare favorably with some of the suburban schools I've looked at, or even with elementaries in upper NW, where you expect to see a lot more Level 5 scores. I'd say Ludlow is doing an awesome job with a diverse student body, but also that scores likely tend to mostly reflect the SES of the families in question.

Which, to relate back to OP's question, indicates that if you stay on the Hill at a school like L-T (and you'd be lucky to be at L-T compared to many other schools in Ward 6!), your child will have a good number of peers at or above grade level, but probably fewer peers well above grade level as you might see in other schools where both the school and the family base is extremely well-resourced. Now, I personally think there are huge benefits to being in a school where not everyone has wealthy parents who watch their child's national percentages like a hawk, so I'd actually argue that L-T is offering the best of both worlds, meeting the needs of high performers, doing a good job moving low performers up to grade level, and also giving children an experience that isn't in some little bubble of privilege. This is one of many reasons I prefer public schools to private.

However, I think the claims in the last few pages that a significant number of L-T students are testing "well above" grade level are hyperbole and reflect maybe some of the hopes and dreams of the posters for their kids, and not facts. I'd also argue that you can't just drop the Grade 5 results as though they don't matter, because there is no guarantee that your child would get into a charter for Grade 5, or a private, or that you'd move. So if you are considering public schools on the Hill, you need to factor in that Grade 5 experience as though you will be part of it, and also factor in Middle Schools. If you find the Grade 5 results unacceptable, or if you find the Stuart Hobson unacceptable, I'd argue that L-T is probably not the best place for you.

I think you missed the PP's point in that they were guesstimating stats for the whole school -- explicitly not just 3-5. When you're considering the peers your kid will have, you don't just care about 3-5, especially when there's a very good chance you'll leave after 4th. I don't think the Grade 5 results are unacceptable, I just don't tell anything close to 1/3rd of the story of your kid's experience over 7-8 years, which if you just look at the PARCC average, is what you're doing.

Why would you think PK3-2nd would be substantially different peers than 3rd? These are the same kids.

The PP said "in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math." That's not true. Don't get me wrong, L-T's scores are GREAT. Not a knock on L-T at all.

The point, though, is that guesstimates of grade level based on your "sense" of your kid's class aren't great. The OP is asking about the impact of having a lot of kids below grade level in a classroom, assuming your child is at or above grade level. If this is something that matters to you, don't go by the broad perceptions of parents with kids at the school. Look at the numbers. L-T has a lot more kids at or above grade level than many other elementaries in Ward 6. It has fewer kids testing well above grade level than in some other DCPS elementaries and in some suburban districts. That's the data point. If grade level of the peer set is really important to you, make your decision based on actual data, not vague estimates, which as we see here, tend to be inaccurate. I would not have expected these to be the testing numbers based on the PPs' comments about L-T -- I would have expected to see a lot more 4s and 5s, especially in Grade 4.

Sorry, you don’t understand that gentrifying schools especially have different average populations in PK v 4th? I can’t take anything you say seriously any more. FWIW my guesstimates are pretty accurate to the extent that internal school data is meaningful, because this is all publicly shared at LT during LSAT meetings.

If the internal data shared at LSAT meeting is public, why not share it here? And what internal data? Is L-T doing testing of K or 1st graders on their own? That would be fascinating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a 3rd grade teacher, it is very important. Schools need to go back to where the low kids are in one class, on grade level in one class. Then high flyers in another class. Mingling the kids all together in core class is horrible. I teach reading and have children in my class that can not read the word cat. Wtf am I supposed to do with these kids besides babysit them? Sure, they have an IEP but guess what, that does not help them read. It just makes me dumb down the curriculum so that they have no choice but to get the right answer with no effort. These students are lost in whole group lessons. I am then teaching pre k standards with them during small groups. No one wants to work with them as partners. My high students have to sit through lessons that they already know naturally. We can never go in depth with them because we have to hit the breaks for the students that just never get it. They are then left to monitor and teach other kids in the class. Public school is a joke because the focus is on inclusive and social emotional but not academics. Bring that old school back!

I really hope you’re lying about being a teacher, but in case you’re not, please quit. The way you’re speaking and the words you’re using are horrendous. Stop doing whole group lessons and do small group rotations based on need.

DP. The truth hurts. Ask any teacher how effective they can be when you have kids 4 or 5 grade levels apart.

BTW, PP above said she does small group rotations. Also you know what happens in small groups? The teacher spends all their time meeting everyday with the lower performing group while the higher performing group might meet with the teacher once a week if that. Rest of the time, kids are left to their own.

Lastly, of course you need to do whole group lesson and teach grade level content. Then you can break into small groups after.