Banneker and Shaw to co-locate at Shaw?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would argue that DCPS' problem with middle school isn't the number of seats, it's that with a few exceptions their schools just aren't very attractive. If they figured out a way to make them attractive those seats would fill.

They know. But it is hard. The answer is to grow middle and upper class buy in. Most of the time DCPS is just pissing those people off.

It's getting better people on Capitol Hill have finally realized Stuart Hobson and Jefferson actually work with honors/tracking although many folks still prefer Latin and Basis

The biggest problem now is EOTP. There are still no good option for folks. The city needs to replicate the honors/tracking models in at least two of the middle schools in the area to keep higher income folks of all races in DCPS.

So tired of reading the casual racism of pro-tracking comments. Tracking is ineffective at making higher students do better and explicitly hurts lower students. It’s junk science perspectives like this so commonly held by the general public that drive educators nuts.

What study shows that upper elementary/junior high students are better off in classrooms where the tested grade level spans 6-8 grades? Watching my kid in a classroom like that this year, I’m not so sure. And I know it was a lot of work for the teachers (to the extent they weren’t relying on computers to push the stretch kids).

[Anonymous]

NP here. Quick question, sorry if I missed it upthread. Was there ever discussion of co-locating Banneker and Cardozo HS together in the very nice Cardozo site?

Couldn't the current middle school Cardozo students and the future(?) Shaw middle school students be together at either Shaw or current Banneker with some renovation?

I realize it's basically a done deal. But the middle schoolers-with-Cardozo high schoolers concerns won't go away. Why not a standalone middle school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would argue that DCPS' problem with middle school isn't the number of seats, it's that with a few exceptions their schools just aren't very attractive. If they figured out a way to make them attractive those seats would fill.

They know. But it is hard. The answer is to grow middle and upper class buy in. Most of the time DCPS is just pissing those people off.

It's getting better people on Capitol Hill have finally realized Stuart Hobson and Jefferson actually work with honors/tracking although many folks still prefer Latin and Basis

The biggest problem now is EOTP. There are still no good option for folks. The city needs to replicate the honors/tracking models in at least two of the middle schools in the area to keep higher income folks of all races in DCPS.

So tired of reading the casual r****m of pro-tracking comments. Tracking is ineffective at making higher students do better and explicitly hurts lower students. It’s junk science perspectives like this so commonly held by the general public that drive educators nuts.

Nearly every word of these three sentences is false. Let me take it apart:
"casual r***m": Here's the poster showing their hand. Their argument is bad-faith from the start; all about division rather than being constructive.
"tracking ... higher students do better": False. False from everyone's personal experience. False on the data. Completely false.
"explicitly" ... an enhancer word, out of place, with no meaning
"hurts ... lower students" ... Only the worst kind of crappy data supports this.
"Junk...": Made up. False. Has been debunked in several threads
"commonly held": because it's true. In the past 40 years education "research" fads have gone from tracking...to homogenity. To tracking. Back to homogeneity.

Tracking is essential to keep the best students. My kids very well might not need it. But taking away tracking means lopping out the best kids from any school. By definition. That's the way to kill a good school.

DCPS needs far more tracking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
What study shows that upper elementary/junior high students are better off in classrooms where the tested grade level spans 6-8 grades? Watching my kid in a classroom like that this year, I’m not so sure. And I know it was a lot of work for the teachers (to the extent they weren’t relying on computers to push the stretch kids).

Exactly, thank you. This topic has been discussed in several threads, and the junk education "research" that "shows" tracking is bad has been thoroughly debunked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. Quick question, sorry if I missed it upthread. Was there ever discussion of co-locating Banneker and Cardozo HS together in the very nice Cardozo site?

Couldn't the current middle school Cardozo students and the future(?) Shaw middle school students be together at either Shaw or current Banneker with some renovation?

I realize it's basically a done deal. But the middle schoolers-with-Cardozo high schoolers concerns won't go away. Why not a standalone middle school?

Cardozo is projected to fill up its building in 10 years with its regular enrollment. There is not enough room for Banneker in the long run, especially since they want Banneker to grow bigger than it currently is. Kicking out the middle school would not really help because the middle school is currently very small (because it's so unappealing). So that would be a short-term solution at best. It isn't appealing to have two tiers of high school in the same building, it creates a lot of tensions and weird equity issues.

There was a study of Banneker and Shaw Middle sharing the Shaw site, but it would have required compromises from each, and jeopardized the green space, and been expensive.

Seems like Shaw moving to the current Banneker building at Euclid is the plan for a stand-alone middle school, long-term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would argue that DCPS' problem with middle school isn't the number of seats, it's that with a few exceptions their schools just aren't very attractive. If they figured out a way to make them attractive those seats would fill.

They know. But it is hard. The answer is to grow middle and upper class buy in. Most of the time DCPS is just pissing those people off.

Aka: build a Shaw Middle School.

The Shaw/Banneker thing makes me sad. The city could have easily made this a win/win for both communities. And they blew it up.

[Anonymous]

There's still no reason it can't still be a win-win. Having the neighborhood middle school at Cardozo is no long-term option unless the high school moves somewhere else. Eventually, the Shaw neighborhood is going to need its own middle school.

[Anonymous]

I’m still confused on this “neighborhood” thing. There are multiple middle schools within a few miles of Shaw. That is considered close in most large cities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's still no reason it can't still be a win-win. Having the neighborhood middle school at Cardozo is no long-term option unless the high school moves somewhere else. Eventually, the Shaw neighborhood is going to need its own middle school.

Co location is only going to grow. Look at the DME letter to the PCSB where he talks about capacity at the MS level for DCPS (tons of empty seats).

DCPS has just done it in Ward 4 with Coolidge and Wells and the projection of children in that area is dramatic too, like Shaw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would argue that DCPS' problem with middle school isn't the number of seats, it's that with a few exceptions their schools just aren't very attractive. If they figured out a way to make them attractive those seats would fill.

They know. But it is hard. The answer is to grow middle and upper class buy in. Most of the time DCPS is just pissing those people off.

Aka: build a Shaw Middle School.

The Shaw/Banneker thing makes me sad. The city could have easily made this a win/win for both communities. And they blew it up.

This

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would argue that DCPS' problem with middle school isn't the number of seats, it's that with a few exceptions their schools just aren't very attractive. If they figured out a way to make them attractive those seats would fill.

They know. But it is hard. The answer is to grow middle and upper class buy in. Most of the time DCPS is just pissing those people off.

It's getting better people on Capitol Hill have finally realized Stuart Hobson and Jefferson actually work with honors/tracking although many folks still prefer Latin and Basis

The biggest problem now is EOTP. There are still no good option for folks. The city needs to replicate the honors/tracking models in at least two of the middle schools in the area to keep higher income folks of all races in DCPS.

So tired of reading the casual r****m of pro-tracking comments. Tracking is ineffective at making higher students do better and explicitly hurts lower students. It’s junk science perspectives like this so commonly held by the general public that drive educators nuts.

Nearly every word of these three sentences is false. Let me take it apart:
"casual r***m": Here's the poster showing their hand. Their argument is bad-faith from the start; all about division rather than being constructive.
"tracking ... higher students do better": False. False from everyone's personal experience. False on the data. Completely false.
"explicitly" ... an enhancer word, out of place, with no meaning
"hurts ... lower students" ... Only the worst kind of crappy data supports this.
"Junk...": Made up. False. Has been debunked in several threads
"commonly held": because it's true. In the past 40 years education "research" fads have gone from tracking...to homogenity. To tracking. Back to homogeneity.

Tracking is essential to keep the best students. My kids very well might not need it. But taking away tracking means lopping out the best kids from any school. By definition. That's the way to kill a good school.

DCPS needs far more tracking.

why do we need tracking? how about just offering a variety of courses suited to different levels. don't all the high schools have AP classes? when you say "tracking" I think of putting kids in a single box based on their test scores.

my kid is only in 1st grade, but I'm glad there isn't tracking. he is an advanced reader, but he can be paired with a less-advanced reader and learn how to be helpful; plus, the kids who are meanest to him (he has high functioning ASD) are the ones in the highest reading levels. I accept that curriculums will have to diverge as kids get older, but I don't know what you mean by "tracking."