Two Rivers elementary families -- what is your MS plan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does TR really do “expeditionary learning” in older grades?

There are attempts in some classrooms. Its not a robust curriculum approach past kindergarten.

The problem is that it is their official curriculum. So if it's not followed or not followed closely, what you get is a patchwork with no consistency. This is why they need to completely overhaul their curriculum. This is also one of the major reasons behind teacher attrition.

I think the reluctance to let go of EL is that they view it as a differentiator from DCPS and other charters. Without it it's really unclear what TR is offering.

This is also often a problem with Montessori charters in upper grades (past 3rd or so) which is why they often see a lot of attrition at that point as parents want to acclimate kids to a traditional classroom. But none of the Montessori schools abandon their principal method in K! Also Montessori has some real support as a method in ECE grades where's EL is just some trendy approach TR latched onto for some reason.

I'm sure that they do, but I've never really grasped what it is other than a bunch of field trips and like, projects about the field trips.

ITDS doesn't have any particular angle and yet is successful. I think the main thing they're offering is a small middle school, which some people love and some people don't want, and a very high adult-child ratio due to all the student teachers. And of course a bunch of high-SES kids and decent test scores. I wouldn't say the differentiation is really that good, they just have a lot of kids who are smart.

Your definition of "success" differs from my own. Also differs from what the word actually means. "Better than a lousy comparator" is not what that word means.

The truth is that very few charters at the elementary level are actually better academically than the average DCPS. If you adjust test scores by socioeconomic level, many charters are actually worse academically.

We are a former TR family now at a DCPS (and not one of the 3 on the Hill that gets talked about on here as "good") and I am not soured in charters completely. We will almost certainly try for charters for MS and HS. But I think at the elementary level charters that do not offer a significant differentiator from DCPS (like Montessori or immersion) should be held to very high standards academically.

Our DCPS experience has been really good and even though I don't regret going to TR for ECE I now realize that we would have better than okay at our IB DCPS for those years with the benefit of a short commute. We were overly swayed by people telling us it was a bad school.

Bolded is an oft repeated statement of nonsense repeated by so many of you "deep thinkers". I don't send my kid to a school to an ES to get their test scores up. I send them to a school where there are enough kids with high test scores that my kid won't be bored or warehoused. By this dumb logic, you should send your kid to any school with a 1% proficiency rate since your kid will be fine. It is ES.

You people and your fortune cookie logic amuse me.

There is a real debate to be had over which is better though:

A neighborhood DCPS with a high number of at risk kids resulting in overall poor test scores but a small cohort of high achieving kids (say 5-15 kids per grade who may be distributed across classes).

OR

A charter with a much smaller percent of at risk kids and overall higher test scores but where kids rarely if ever work above grade level and may receive a disjointed education with weak curriculum (so: Two Rivers).

Obviously neither are ideal. If you value having your kid in an ES with a large cohort of high achievers then neither of these are going to meet your expectations. The DCPS may have some high achievers but they will be very limited and your kid will definitely spend a lot of time doing solo work or having to sit through lessons that are review for them. However I will say that my experience with DCPS is that the high caliber of teachers at the ES level mean that high achieving kids absolutely ARE given above grade level work that challenges them and the schools often find ways to group advanced students so they can work forward. But yes there will be some boredom and just the general issue of your kid being at a school where most of the focus is going to be on trying to bring at risk students up to grade level.

On the other hand at the charter your kid isn't really in a group of high achievers either. At Two Rivers actual high achievers leave because there is nothing for them there. Kids who are right on grade level do fine and then the school is not very good at moving kids who are below grade level up. The main advantage you will get at a school like this is social -- plenty of kids with a similar background and thus plenty of parents with a similar background so it may be overall a more pleasant experience. But it's unlikely your child will be challenged and they certainly are not getting the benefit of a high achieving cohort.

Those are the options being discussed in this thread. If you are looking for a school with a large cohort of high achievers you will need to look elsewhere altogether. The problem of course is that if your IB is say JO Wilson and the best alternative you can get into is TR you may not have other options unless you move or keep playing the lottery and hope you get a hit.

You don’t think high achievers leave in DCPS schools too esp if there is a huge achievement gap and the overwhelming majority of kids are working below grade level??

They sure do by the masses because the school has nothing to offer them. Just look at the composition of the kids in ECE compared to 2nd or 3rd.

The difference between schools above and some charters is that some charters have much better scores and significantly more kids at or above grade level so they can actually teach grade level content.

They don't because this is DCUM. The anti-charter folks live in a fantasy world where (1) high achieving kids in DCPS don't flee to BASIS, Latin, privates or the burbs, (2) where DCPS Central is a perfectly functioning bureaucracy that wastes no money and provides all necessary support, (3) tenured teachers in DCPS are never dead weight and abusive to kids and admins - they are all staffed from Dead Poet's Society, (4) Principals and admins in DCPS are wonderfully nurturing and don't get and keep their jobs largely playing DCPS Central's games and kissing the butts of the Chancellor and the trolls in Central.

You sound exceedingly bitter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does TR really do “expeditionary learning” in older grades?

There are attempts in some classrooms. Its not a robust curriculum approach past kindergarten.

The problem is that it is their official curriculum. So if it's not followed or not followed closely, what you get is a patchwork with no consistency. This is why they need to completely overhaul their curriculum. This is also one of the major reasons behind teacher attrition.

I think the reluctance to let go of EL is that they view it as a differentiator from DCPS and other charters. Without it it's really unclear what TR is offering.

This is also often a problem with Montessori charters in upper grades (past 3rd or so) which is why they often see a lot of attrition at that point as parents want to acclimate kids to a traditional classroom. But none of the Montessori schools abandon their principal method in K! Also Montessori has some real support as a method in ECE grades where's EL is just some trendy approach TR latched onto for some reason.

I'm sure that they do, but I've never really grasped what it is other than a bunch of field trips and like, projects about the field trips.

ITDS doesn't have any particular angle and yet is successful. I think the main thing they're offering is a small middle school, which some people love and some people don't want, and a very high adult-child ratio due to all the student teachers. And of course a bunch of high-SES kids and decent test scores. I wouldn't say the differentiation is really that good, they just have a lot of kids who are smart.

Your definition of "success" differs from my own. Also differs from what the word actually means. "Better than a lousy comparator" is not what that word means.

The truth is that very few charters at the elementary level are actually better academically than the average DCPS. If you adjust test scores by socioeconomic level, many charters are actually worse academically.

We are a former TR family now at a DCPS (and not one of the 3 on the Hill that gets talked about on here as "good") and I am not soured in charters completely. We will almost certainly try for charters for MS and HS. But I think at the elementary level charters that do not offer a significant differentiator from DCPS (like Montessori or immersion) should be held to very high standards academically.

Our DCPS experience has been really good and even though I don't regret going to TR for ECE I now realize that we would have better than okay at our IB DCPS for those years with the benefit of a short commute. We were overly swayed by people telling us it was a bad school.

Bolded is an oft repeated statement of nonsense repeated by so many of you "deep thinkers". I don't send my kid to a school to an ES to get their test scores up. I send them to a school where there are enough kids with high test scores that my kid won't be bored or warehoused. By this dumb logic, you should send your kid to any school with a 1% proficiency rate since your kid will be fine. It is ES.

You people and your fortune cookie logic amuse me.

There is a real debate to be had over which is better though:

A neighborhood DCPS with a high number of at risk kids resulting in overall poor test scores but a small cohort of high achieving kids (say 5-15 kids per grade who may be distributed across classes).

OR

A charter with a much smaller percent of at risk kids and overall higher test scores but where kids rarely if ever work above grade level and may receive a disjointed education with weak curriculum (so: Two Rivers).

Obviously neither are ideal. If you value having your kid in an ES with a large cohort of high achievers then neither of these are going to meet your expectations. The DCPS may have some high achievers but they will be very limited and your kid will definitely spend a lot of time doing solo work or having to sit through lessons that are review for them. However I will say that my experience with DCPS is that the high caliber of teachers at the ES level mean that high achieving kids absolutely ARE given above grade level work that challenges them and the schools often find ways to group advanced students so they can work forward. But yes there will be some boredom and just the general issue of your kid being at a school where most of the focus is going to be on trying to bring at risk students up to grade level.

On the other hand at the charter your kid isn't really in a group of high achievers either. At Two Rivers actual high achievers leave because there is nothing for them there. Kids who are right on grade level do fine and then the school is not very good at moving kids who are below grade level up. The main advantage you will get at a school like this is social -- plenty of kids with a similar background and thus plenty of parents with a similar background so it may be overall a more pleasant experience. But it's unlikely your child will be challenged and they certainly are not getting the benefit of a high achieving cohort.

Those are the options being discussed in this thread. If you are looking for a school with a large cohort of high achievers you will need to look elsewhere altogether. The problem of course is that if your IB is say JO Wilson and the best alternative you can get into is TR you may not have other options unless you move or keep playing the lottery and hope you get a hit.

You don’t think high achievers leave in DCPS schools too esp if there is a huge achievement gap and the overwhelming majority of kids are working below grade level??

They sure do by the masses because the school has nothing to offer them. Just look at the composition of the kids in ECE compared to 2nd or 3rd.

The difference between schools above and some charters is that some charters have much better scores and significantly more kids at or above grade level so they can actually teach grade level content.

They don't because this is DCUM. The anti-charter folks live in a fantasy world where (1) high achieving kids in DCPS don't flee to BASIS, Latin, privates or the burbs, (2) where DCPS Central is a perfectly functioning bureaucracy that wastes no money and provides all necessary support, (3) tenured teachers in DCPS are never dead weight and abusive to kids and admins - they are all staffed from Dead Poet's Society, (4) Principals and admins in DCPS are wonderfully nurturing and don't get and keep their jobs largely playing DCPS Central's games and kissing the butts of the Chancellor and the trolls in Central.

I know it's fun for folks to pick fights on here, but I would argue that most if not all DCPS parents do not believe all in DCPS is perfect by any means. However, I am the previous poster who worked in charters for 10+ years, beginning before I had kids. The amount of anti DCPS/anti Union narrative I was fed had me thinking all DCPS teachers were lazy, could not be fired , etc. After only a few years in DCPS I realized that education is way more grey than black and white and that there are also great things happening in DCPS. That being said, there also is a camp of DCPS folks who like to paint all charters as horrible and that they are ruining everything. Also not helpful.
As someone has said earlier in this thread depending on the LEA and leadership, charter experience can vary greatly. And I do know there are staffing challenges at (at least some) charters due to DCPS pay, schedule and benefits appealing vs charter.
All about to say I also agree with the previous poster that you can't lump all Title 1 schools together just like you shouldn't lump all charter schools together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does TR really do “expeditionary learning” in older grades?

There are attempts in some classrooms. Its not a robust curriculum approach past kindergarten.

The problem is that it is their official curriculum. So if it's not followed or not followed closely, what you get is a patchwork with no consistency. This is why they need to completely overhaul their curriculum. This is also one of the major reasons behind teacher attrition.

I think the reluctance to let go of EL is that they view it as a differentiator from DCPS and other charters. Without it it's really unclear what TR is offering.

This is also often a problem with Montessori charters in upper grades (past 3rd or so) which is why they often see a lot of attrition at that point as parents want to acclimate kids to a traditional classroom. But none of the Montessori schools abandon their principal method in K! Also Montessori has some real support as a method in ECE grades where's EL is just some trendy approach TR latched onto for some reason.

I'm sure that they do, but I've never really grasped what it is other than a bunch of field trips and like, projects about the field trips.

ITDS doesn't have any particular angle and yet is successful. I think the main thing they're offering is a small middle school, which some people love and some people don't want, and a very high adult-child ratio due to all the student teachers. And of course a bunch of high-SES kids and decent test scores. I wouldn't say the differentiation is really that good, they just have a lot of kids who are smart.

Your definition of "success" differs from my own. Also differs from what the word actually means. "Better than a lousy comparator" is not what that word means.

The truth is that very few charters at the elementary level are actually better academically than the average DCPS. If you adjust test scores by socioeconomic level, many charters are actually worse academically.

We are a former TR family now at a DCPS (and not one of the 3 on the Hill that gets talked about on here as "good") and I am not soured in charters completely. We will almost certainly try for charters for MS and HS. But I think at the elementary level charters that do not offer a significant differentiator from DCPS (like Montessori or immersion) should be held to very high standards academically.

Our DCPS experience has been really good and even though I don't regret going to TR for ECE I now realize that we would have better than okay at our IB DCPS for those years with the benefit of a short commute. We were overly swayed by people telling us it was a bad school.

Bolded is an oft repeated statement of nonsense repeated by so many of you "deep thinkers". I don't send my kid to a school to an ES to get their test scores up. I send them to a school where there are enough kids with high test scores that my kid won't be bored or warehoused. By this dumb logic, you should send your kid to any school with a 1% proficiency rate since your kid will be fine. It is ES.

You people and your fortune cookie logic amuse me.

There is a real debate to be had over which is better though:

A neighborhood DCPS with a high number of at risk kids resulting in overall poor test scores but a small cohort of high achieving kids (say 5-15 kids per grade who may be distributed across classes).

OR

A charter with a much smaller percent of at risk kids and overall higher test scores but where kids rarely if ever work above grade level and may receive a disjointed education with weak curriculum (so: Two Rivers).

Obviously neither are ideal. If you value having your kid in an ES with a large cohort of high achievers then neither of these are going to meet your expectations. The DCPS may have some high achievers but they will be very limited and your kid will definitely spend a lot of time doing solo work or having to sit through lessons that are review for them. However I will say that my experience with DCPS is that the high caliber of teachers at the ES level mean that high achieving kids absolutely ARE given above grade level work that challenges them and the schools often find ways to group advanced students so they can work forward. But yes there will be some boredom and just the general issue of your kid being at a school where most of the focus is going to be on trying to bring at risk students up to grade level.

On the other hand at the charter your kid isn't really in a group of high achievers either. At Two Rivers actual high achievers leave because there is nothing for them there. Kids who are right on grade level do fine and then the school is not very good at moving kids who are below grade level up. The main advantage you will get at a school like this is social -- plenty of kids with a similar background and thus plenty of parents with a similar background so it may be overall a more pleasant experience. But it's unlikely your child will be challenged and they certainly are not getting the benefit of a high achieving cohort.

Those are the options being discussed in this thread. If you are looking for a school with a large cohort of high achievers you will need to look elsewhere altogether. The problem of course is that if your IB is say JO Wilson and the best alternative you can get into is TR you may not have other options unless you move or keep playing the lottery and hope you get a hit.

You don’t think high achievers leave in DCPS schools too esp if there is a huge achievement gap and the overwhelming majority of kids are working below grade level??

They sure do by the masses because the school has nothing to offer them. Just look at the composition of the kids in ECE compared to 2nd or 3rd.

The difference between schools above and some charters is that some charters have much better scores and significantly more kids at or above grade level so they can actually teach grade level content.

They don't because this is DCUM. The anti-charter folks live in a fantasy world where (1) high achieving kids in DCPS don't flee to BASIS, Latin, privates or the burbs, (2) where DCPS Central is a perfectly functioning bureaucracy that wastes no money and provides all necessary support, (3) tenured teachers in DCPS are never dead weight and abusive to kids and admins - they are all staffed from Dead Poet's Society, (4) Principals and admins in DCPS are wonderfully nurturing and don't get and keep their jobs largely playing DCPS Central's games and kissing the butts of the Chancellor and the trolls in Central.

You sound exceedingly bitter.

You must be new here. The obviously sarcastic post pretty well sums much of the anti-charter pablum on DCUM. Go back and re-read just this thread. The way people wax philosophic about DCPS and how well run Central is does not reflect reality. No one who has ever had a serious issue with DCPS or a tenured teacher would be lecturing on the advocate or paths of escalation. Why do you think so many people resort to suing DCPS? DCPS Central is a black hole of money and power struggles. Many tenured teachers are terrible and there is nothing to be done about them. The Chancellor thumbs his nose at the Council and rejects all oversight. DCPS is a freight train that takes years to course correct.

None of which is to say all DCPS schools are bad or all teachers are bad. This is a nuanced discussion. The point is that it is as ignorant to equate Eastern and JR as it is to equate all charter schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does TR really do “expeditionary learning” in older grades?

There are attempts in some classrooms. Its not a robust curriculum approach past kindergarten.

The problem is that it is their official curriculum. So if it's not followed or not followed closely, what you get is a patchwork with no consistency. This is why they need to completely overhaul their curriculum. This is also one of the major reasons behind teacher attrition.

I think the reluctance to let go of EL is that they view it as a differentiator from DCPS and other charters. Without it it's really unclear what TR is offering.

This is also often a problem with Montessori charters in upper grades (past 3rd or so) which is why they often see a lot of attrition at that point as parents want to acclimate kids to a traditional classroom. But none of the Montessori schools abandon their principal method in K! Also Montessori has some real support as a method in ECE grades where's EL is just some trendy approach TR latched onto for some reason.

I'm sure that they do, but I've never really grasped what it is other than a bunch of field trips and like, projects about the field trips.

ITDS doesn't have any particular angle and yet is successful. I think the main thing they're offering is a small middle school, which some people love and some people don't want, and a very high adult-child ratio due to all the student teachers. And of course a bunch of high-SES kids and decent test scores. I wouldn't say the differentiation is really that good, they just have a lot of kids who are smart.

Your definition of "success" differs from my own. Also differs from what the word actually means. "Better than a lousy comparator" is not what that word means.

The truth is that very few charters at the elementary level are actually better academically than the average DCPS. If you adjust test scores by socioeconomic level, many charters are actually worse academically.

We are a former TR family now at a DCPS (and not one of the 3 on the Hill that gets talked about on here as "good") and I am not soured in charters completely. We will almost certainly try for charters for MS and HS. But I think at the elementary level charters that do not offer a significant differentiator from DCPS (like Montessori or immersion) should be held to very high standards academically.

Our DCPS experience has been really good and even though I don't regret going to TR for ECE I now realize that we would have better than okay at our IB DCPS for those years with the benefit of a short commute. We were overly swayed by people telling us it was a bad school.

Bolded is an oft repeated statement of nonsense repeated by so many of you "deep thinkers". I don't send my kid to a school to an ES to get their test scores up. I send them to a school where there are enough kids with high test scores that my kid won't be bored or warehoused. By this dumb logic, you should send your kid to any school with a 1% proficiency rate since your kid will be fine. It is ES.

You people and your fortune cookie logic amuse me.

There is a real debate to be had over which is better though:

A neighborhood DCPS with a high number of at risk kids resulting in overall poor test scores but a small cohort of high achieving kids (say 5-15 kids per grade who may be distributed across classes).

OR

A charter with a much smaller percent of at risk kids and overall higher test scores but where kids rarely if ever work above grade level and may receive a disjointed education with weak curriculum (so: Two Rivers).

Obviously neither are ideal. If you value having your kid in an ES with a large cohort of high achievers then neither of these are going to meet your expectations. The DCPS may have some high achievers but they will be very limited and your kid will definitely spend a lot of time doing solo work or having to sit through lessons that are review for them. However I will say that my experience with DCPS is that the high caliber of teachers at the ES level mean that high achieving kids absolutely ARE given above grade level work that challenges them and the schools often find ways to group advanced students so they can work forward. But yes there will be some boredom and just the general issue of your kid being at a school where most of the focus is going to be on trying to bring at risk students up to grade level.

On the other hand at the charter your kid isn't really in a group of high achievers either. At Two Rivers actual high achievers leave because there is nothing for them there. Kids who are right on grade level do fine and then the school is not very good at moving kids who are below grade level up. The main advantage you will get at a school like this is social -- plenty of kids with a similar background and thus plenty of parents with a similar background so it may be overall a more pleasant experience. But it's unlikely your child will be challenged and they certainly are not getting the benefit of a high achieving cohort.

Those are the options being discussed in this thread. If you are looking for a school with a large cohort of high achievers you will need to look elsewhere altogether. The problem of course is that if your IB is say JO Wilson and the best alternative you can get into is TR you may not have other options unless you move or keep playing the lottery and hope you get a hit.

You don’t think high achievers leave in DCPS schools too esp if there is a huge achievement gap and the overwhelming majority of kids are working below grade level??

They sure do by the masses because the school has nothing to offer them. Just look at the composition of the kids in ECE compared to 2nd or 3rd.

The difference between schools above and some charters is that some charters have much better scores and significantly more kids at or above grade level so they can actually teach grade level content.

They don't because this is DCUM. The anti-charter folks live in a fantasy world where (1) high achieving kids in DCPS don't flee to BASIS, Latin, privates or the burbs, (2) where DCPS Central is a perfectly functioning bureaucracy that wastes no money and provides all necessary support, (3) tenured teachers in DCPS are never dead weight and abusive to kids and admins - they are all staffed from Dead Poet's Society, (4) Principals and admins in DCPS are wonderfully nurturing and don't get and keep their jobs largely playing DCPS Central's games and kissing the butts of the Chancellor and the trolls in Central.

You sound exceedingly bitter.

You must be new here. The obviously sarcastic post pretty well sums much of the anti-charter pablum on DCUM. Go back and re-read just this thread. The way people wax philosophic about DCPS and how well run Central is does not reflect reality. No one who has ever had a serious issue with DCPS or a tenured teacher would be lecturing on the advocate or paths of escalation. Why do you think so many people resort to suing DCPS? DCPS Central is a black hole of money and power struggles. Many tenured teachers are terrible and there is nothing to be done about them. The Chancellor thumbs his nose at the Council and rejects all oversight. DCPS is a freight train that takes years to course correct.

None of which is to say all DCPS schools are bad or all teachers are bad. This is a nuanced discussion. The point is that it is as ignorant to equate Eastern and JR as it is to equate all charter schools.

This site is generally used to inform school choice in DC. A bitterly anti-DCPS screed is just dumb. I'm pro-charter and pro-DCPS. There's more like me than people who take one side and rant about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does TR really do “expeditionary learning” in older grades?

There are attempts in some classrooms. Its not a robust curriculum approach past kindergarten.

The problem is that it is their official curriculum. So if it's not followed or not followed closely, what you get is a patchwork with no consistency. This is why they need to completely overhaul their curriculum. This is also one of the major reasons behind teacher attrition.

I think the reluctance to let go of EL is that they view it as a differentiator from DCPS and other charters. Without it it's really unclear what TR is offering.

This is also often a problem with Montessori charters in upper grades (past 3rd or so) which is why they often see a lot of attrition at that point as parents want to acclimate kids to a traditional classroom. But none of the Montessori schools abandon their principal method in K! Also Montessori has some real support as a method in ECE grades where's EL is just some trendy approach TR latched onto for some reason.

I'm sure that they do, but I've never really grasped what it is other than a bunch of field trips and like, projects about the field trips.

ITDS doesn't have any particular angle and yet is successful. I think the main thing they're offering is a small middle school, which some people love and some people don't want, and a very high adult-child ratio due to all the student teachers. And of course a bunch of high-SES kids and decent test scores. I wouldn't say the differentiation is really that good, they just have a lot of kids who are smart.

Your definition of "success" differs from my own. Also differs from what the word actually means. "Better than a lousy comparator" is not what that word means.

The truth is that very few charters at the elementary level are actually better academically than the average DCPS. If you adjust test scores by socioeconomic level, many charters are actually worse academically.

We are a former TR family now at a DCPS (and not one of the 3 on the Hill that gets talked about on here as "good") and I am not soured in charters completely. We will almost certainly try for charters for MS and HS. But I think at the elementary level charters that do not offer a significant differentiator from DCPS (like Montessori or immersion) should be held to very high standards academically.

Our DCPS experience has been really good and even though I don't regret going to TR for ECE I now realize that we would have better than okay at our IB DCPS for those years with the benefit of a short commute. We were overly swayed by people telling us it was a bad school.

Bolded is an oft repeated statement of nonsense repeated by so many of you "deep thinkers". I don't send my kid to a school to an ES to get their test scores up. I send them to a school where there are enough kids with high test scores that my kid won't be bored or warehoused. By this dumb logic, you should send your kid to any school with a 1% proficiency rate since your kid will be fine. It is ES.

You people and your fortune cookie logic amuse me.

There is a real debate to be had over which is better though:

A neighborhood DCPS with a high number of at risk kids resulting in overall poor test scores but a small cohort of high achieving kids (say 5-15 kids per grade who may be distributed across classes).

OR

A charter with a much smaller percent of at risk kids and overall higher test scores but where kids rarely if ever work above grade level and may receive a disjointed education with weak curriculum (so: Two Rivers).

Obviously neither are ideal. If you value having your kid in an ES with a large cohort of high achievers then neither of these are going to meet your expectations. The DCPS may have some high achievers but they will be very limited and your kid will definitely spend a lot of time doing solo work or having to sit through lessons that are review for them. However I will say that my experience with DCPS is that the high caliber of teachers at the ES level mean that high achieving kids absolutely ARE given above grade level work that challenges them and the schools often find ways to group advanced students so they can work forward. But yes there will be some boredom and just the general issue of your kid being at a school where most of the focus is going to be on trying to bring at risk students up to grade level.

On the other hand at the charter your kid isn't really in a group of high achievers either. At Two Rivers actual high achievers leave because there is nothing for them there. Kids who are right on grade level do fine and then the school is not very good at moving kids who are below grade level up. The main advantage you will get at a school like this is social -- plenty of kids with a similar background and thus plenty of parents with a similar background so it may be overall a more pleasant experience. But it's unlikely your child will be challenged and they certainly are not getting the benefit of a high achieving cohort.

Those are the options being discussed in this thread. If you are looking for a school with a large cohort of high achievers you will need to look elsewhere altogether. The problem of course is that if your IB is say JO Wilson and the best alternative you can get into is TR you may not have other options unless you move or keep playing the lottery and hope you get a hit.

You don’t think high achievers leave in DCPS schools too esp if there is a huge achievement gap and the overwhelming majority of kids are working below grade level??

They sure do by the masses because the school has nothing to offer them. Just look at the composition of the kids in ECE compared to 2nd or 3rd.

The difference between schools above and some charters is that some charters have much better scores and significantly more kids at or above grade level so they can actually teach grade level content.

They don't because this is DCUM. The anti-charter folks live in a fantasy world where (1) high achieving kids in DCPS don't flee to BASIS, Latin, privates or the burbs, (2) where DCPS Central is a perfectly functioning bureaucracy that wastes no money and provides all necessary support, (3) tenured teachers in DCPS are never dead weight and abusive to kids and admins - they are all staffed from Dead Poet's Society, (4) Principals and admins in DCPS are wonderfully nurturing and don't get and keep their jobs largely playing DCPS Central's games and kissing the butts of the Chancellor and the trolls in Central.

You sound exceedingly bitter.

You must be new here. The obviously sarcastic post pretty well sums much of the anti-charter pablum on DCUM. Go back and re-read just this thread. The way people wax philosophic about DCPS and how well run Central is does not reflect reality. No one who has ever had a serious issue with DCPS or a tenured teacher would be lecturing on the advocate or paths of escalation. Why do you think so many people resort to suing DCPS? DCPS Central is a black hole of money and power struggles. Many tenured teachers are terrible and there is nothing to be done about them. The Chancellor thumbs his nose at the Council and rejects all oversight. DCPS is a freight train that takes years to course correct.

None of which is to say all DCPS schools are bad or all teachers are bad. This is a nuanced discussion. The point is that it is as ignorant to equate Eastern and JR as it is to equate all charter schools.

This site is generally used to inform school choice in DC. A bitterly anti-DCPS screed is just dumb. I'm pro-charter and pro-DCPS. There's more like me than people who take one side and rant about it.

The point of the post was to exaggerate the anti-charter, DCPS as panacea posts that predominated the thread. If you aren't smart enough to understand hyperbole and sarcasm then maybe log off the interwebs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does TR really do “expeditionary learning” in older grades?

There are attempts in some classrooms. Its not a robust curriculum approach past kindergarten.

The problem is that it is their official curriculum. So if it's not followed or not followed closely, what you get is a patchwork with no consistency. This is why they need to completely overhaul their curriculum. This is also one of the major reasons behind teacher attrition.

I think the reluctance to let go of EL is that they view it as a differentiator from DCPS and other charters. Without it it's really unclear what TR is offering.

This is also often a problem with Montessori charters in upper grades (past 3rd or so) which is why they often see a lot of attrition at that point as parents want to acclimate kids to a traditional classroom. But none of the Montessori schools abandon their principal method in K! Also Montessori has some real support as a method in ECE grades where's EL is just some trendy approach TR latched onto for some reason.

I'm sure that they do, but I've never really grasped what it is other than a bunch of field trips and like, projects about the field trips.

ITDS doesn't have any particular angle and yet is successful. I think the main thing they're offering is a small middle school, which some people love and some people don't want, and a very high adult-child ratio due to all the student teachers. And of course a bunch of high-SES kids and decent test scores. I wouldn't say the differentiation is really that good, they just have a lot of kids who are smart.

Your definition of "success" differs from my own. Also differs from what the word actually means. "Better than a lousy comparator" is not what that word means.

The truth is that very few charters at the elementary level are actually better academically than the average DCPS. If you adjust test scores by socioeconomic level, many charters are actually worse academically.

We are a former TR family now at a DCPS (and not one of the 3 on the Hill that gets talked about on here as "good") and I am not soured in charters completely. We will almost certainly try for charters for MS and HS. But I think at the elementary level charters that do not offer a significant differentiator from DCPS (like Montessori or immersion) should be held to very high standards academically.

Our DCPS experience has been really good and even though I don't regret going to TR for ECE I now realize that we would have better than okay at our IB DCPS for those years with the benefit of a short commute. We were overly swayed by people telling us it was a bad school.

Bolded is an oft repeated statement of nonsense repeated by so many of you "deep thinkers". I don't send my kid to a school to an ES to get their test scores up. I send them to a school where there are enough kids with high test scores that my kid won't be bored or warehoused. By this dumb logic, you should send your kid to any school with a 1% proficiency rate since your kid will be fine. It is ES.

You people and your fortune cookie logic amuse me.

There is a real debate to be had over which is better though:

A neighborhood DCPS with a high number of at risk kids resulting in overall poor test scores but a small cohort of high achieving kids (say 5-15 kids per grade who may be distributed across classes).

OR

A charter with a much smaller percent of at risk kids and overall higher test scores but where kids rarely if ever work above grade level and may receive a disjointed education with weak curriculum (so: Two Rivers).

Obviously neither are ideal. If you value having your kid in an ES with a large cohort of high achievers then neither of these are going to meet your expectations. The DCPS may have some high achievers but they will be very limited and your kid will definitely spend a lot of time doing solo work or having to sit through lessons that are review for them. However I will say that my experience with DCPS is that the high caliber of teachers at the ES level mean that high achieving kids absolutely ARE given above grade level work that challenges them and the schools often find ways to group advanced students so they can work forward. But yes there will be some boredom and just the general issue of your kid being at a school where most of the focus is going to be on trying to bring at risk students up to grade level.

On the other hand at the charter your kid isn't really in a group of high achievers either. At Two Rivers actual high achievers leave because there is nothing for them there. Kids who are right on grade level do fine and then the school is not very good at moving kids who are below grade level up. The main advantage you will get at a school like this is social -- plenty of kids with a similar background and thus plenty of parents with a similar background so it may be overall a more pleasant experience. But it's unlikely your child will be challenged and they certainly are not getting the benefit of a high achieving cohort.

Those are the options being discussed in this thread. If you are looking for a school with a large cohort of high achievers you will need to look elsewhere altogether. The problem of course is that if your IB is say JO Wilson and the best alternative you can get into is TR you may not have other options unless you move or keep playing the lottery and hope you get a hit.

You don’t think high achievers leave in DCPS schools too esp if there is a huge achievement gap and the overwhelming majority of kids are working below grade level??

They sure do by the masses because the school has nothing to offer them. Just look at the composition of the kids in ECE compared to 2nd or 3rd.

The difference between schools above and some charters is that some charters have much better scores and significantly more kids at or above grade level so they can actually teach grade level content.

They don't because this is DCUM. The anti-charter folks live in a fantasy world where (1) high achieving kids in DCPS don't flee to BASIS, Latin, privates or the burbs, (2) where DCPS Central is a perfectly functioning bureaucracy that wastes no money and provides all necessary support, (3) tenured teachers in DCPS are never dead weight and abusive to kids and admins - they are all staffed from Dead Poet's Society, (4) Principals and admins in DCPS are wonderfully nurturing and don't get and keep their jobs largely playing DCPS Central's games and kissing the butts of the Chancellor and the trolls in Central.

You sound exceedingly bitter.

You must be new here. The obviously sarcastic post pretty well sums much of the anti-charter pablum on DCUM. Go back and re-read just this thread. The way people wax philosophic about DCPS and how well run Central is does not reflect reality. No one who has ever had a serious issue with DCPS or a tenured teacher would be lecturing on the advocate or paths of escalation. Why do you think so many people resort to suing DCPS? DCPS Central is a black hole of money and power struggles. Many tenured teachers are terrible and there is nothing to be done about them. The Chancellor thumbs his nose at the Council and rejects all oversight. DCPS is a freight train that takes years to course correct.

None of which is to say all DCPS schools are bad or all teachers are bad. This is a nuanced discussion. The point is that it is as ignorant to equate Eastern and JR as it is to equate all charter schools.

This site is generally used to inform school choice in DC. A bitterly anti-DCPS screed is just dumb. I'm pro-charter and pro-DCPS. There's more like me than people who take one side and rant about it.

The point of the post was to exaggerate the anti-charter, DCPS as panacea posts that predominated the thread. If you aren't smart enough to understand hyperbole and sarcasm then maybe log off the interwebs?

It was a stupid post in a thread that was actually not engaging in any sort of anti-charter rhetoric, but instead a mostly measured discussion of charter and DCPS experiences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does TR really do “expeditionary learning” in older grades?

There are attempts in some classrooms. Its not a robust curriculum approach past kindergarten.

The problem is that it is their official curriculum. So if it's not followed or not followed closely, what you get is a patchwork with no consistency. This is why they need to completely overhaul their curriculum. This is also one of the major reasons behind teacher attrition.

I think the reluctance to let go of EL is that they view it as a differentiator from DCPS and other charters. Without it it's really unclear what TR is offering.

This is also often a problem with Montessori charters in upper grades (past 3rd or so) which is why they often see a lot of attrition at that point as parents want to acclimate kids to a traditional classroom. But none of the Montessori schools abandon their principal method in K! Also Montessori has some real support as a method in ECE grades where's EL is just some trendy approach TR latched onto for some reason.

I'm sure that they do, but I've never really grasped what it is other than a bunch of field trips and like, projects about the field trips.

ITDS doesn't have any particular angle and yet is successful. I think the main thing they're offering is a small middle school, which some people love and some people don't want, and a very high adult-child ratio due to all the student teachers. And of course a bunch of high-SES kids and decent test scores. I wouldn't say the differentiation is really that good, they just have a lot of kids who are smart.

Your definition of "success" differs from my own. Also differs from what the word actually means. "Better than a lousy comparator" is not what that word means.

The truth is that very few charters at the elementary level are actually better academically than the average DCPS. If you adjust test scores by socioeconomic level, many charters are actually worse academically.

We are a former TR family now at a DCPS (and not one of the 3 on the Hill that gets talked about on here as "good") and I am not soured in charters completely. We will almost certainly try for charters for MS and HS. But I think at the elementary level charters that do not offer a significant differentiator from DCPS (like Montessori or immersion) should be held to very high standards academically.

Our DCPS experience has been really good and even though I don't regret going to TR for ECE I now realize that we would have better than okay at our IB DCPS for those years with the benefit of a short commute. We were overly swayed by people telling us it was a bad school.

Bolded is an oft repeated statement of nonsense repeated by so many of you "deep thinkers". I don't send my kid to a school to an ES to get their test scores up. I send them to a school where there are enough kids with high test scores that my kid won't be bored or warehoused. By this dumb logic, you should send your kid to any school with a 1% proficiency rate since your kid will be fine. It is ES.

You people and your fortune cookie logic amuse me.

There is a real debate to be had over which is better though:

A neighborhood DCPS with a high number of at risk kids resulting in overall poor test scores but a small cohort of high achieving kids (say 5-15 kids per grade who may be distributed across classes).

OR

A charter with a much smaller percent of at risk kids and overall higher test scores but where kids rarely if ever work above grade level and may receive a disjointed education with weak curriculum (so: Two Rivers).

Obviously neither are ideal. If you value having your kid in an ES with a large cohort of high achievers then neither of these are going to meet your expectations. The DCPS may have some high achievers but they will be very limited and your kid will definitely spend a lot of time doing solo work or having to sit through lessons that are review for them. However I will say that my experience with DCPS is that the high caliber of teachers at the ES level mean that high achieving kids absolutely ARE given above grade level work that challenges them and the schools often find ways to group advanced students so they can work forward. But yes there will be some boredom and just the general issue of your kid being at a school where most of the focus is going to be on trying to bring at risk students up to grade level.

On the other hand at the charter your kid isn't really in a group of high achievers either. At Two Rivers actual high achievers leave because there is nothing for them there. Kids who are right on grade level do fine and then the school is not very good at moving kids who are below grade level up. The main advantage you will get at a school like this is social -- plenty of kids with a similar background and thus plenty of parents with a similar background so it may be overall a more pleasant experience. But it's unlikely your child will be challenged and they certainly are not getting the benefit of a high achieving cohort.

Those are the options being discussed in this thread. If you are looking for a school with a large cohort of high achievers you will need to look elsewhere altogether. The problem of course is that if your IB is say JO Wilson and the best alternative you can get into is TR you may not have other options unless you move or keep playing the lottery and hope you get a hit.

You don’t think high achievers leave in DCPS schools too esp if there is a huge achievement gap and the overwhelming majority of kids are working below grade level??

They sure do by the masses because the school has nothing to offer them. Just look at the composition of the kids in ECE compared to 2nd or 3rd.

The difference between schools above and some charters is that some charters have much better scores and significantly more kids at or above grade level so they can actually teach grade level content.

They don't because this is DCUM. The anti-charter folks live in a fantasy world where (1) high achieving kids in DCPS don't flee to BASIS, Latin, privates or the burbs, (2) where DCPS Central is a perfectly functioning bureaucracy that wastes no money and provides all necessary support, (3) tenured teachers in DCPS are never dead weight and abusive to kids and admins - they are all staffed from Dead Poet's Society, (4) Principals and admins in DCPS are wonderfully nurturing and don't get and keep their jobs largely playing DCPS Central's games and kissing the butts of the Chancellor and the trolls in Central.

You sound exceedingly bitter.

You must be new here. The obviously sarcastic post pretty well sums much of the anti-charter pablum on DCUM. Go back and re-read just this thread. The way people wax philosophic about DCPS and how well run Central is does not reflect reality. No one who has ever had a serious issue with DCPS or a tenured teacher would be lecturing on the advocate or paths of escalation. Why do you think so many people resort to suing DCPS? DCPS Central is a black hole of money and power struggles. Many tenured teachers are terrible and there is nothing to be done about them. The Chancellor thumbs his nose at the Council and rejects all oversight. DCPS is a freight train that takes years to course correct.

None of which is to say all DCPS schools are bad or all teachers are bad. This is a nuanced discussion. The point is that it is as ignorant to equate Eastern and JR as it is to equate all charter schools.

This site is generally used to inform school choice in DC. A bitterly anti-DCPS screed is just dumb. I'm pro-charter and pro-DCPS. There's more like me than people who take one side and rant about it.

The point of the post was to exaggerate the anti-charter, DCPS as panacea posts that predominated the thread. If you aren't smart enough to understand hyperbole and sarcasm then maybe log off the interwebs?

It was a stupid post in a thread that was actually not engaging in any sort of anti-charter rhetoric, but instead a mostly measured discussion of charter and DCPS experiences.

Yeah i have not read any of this thread as high praise for DCPS but rather a discussion of whether TR is so bad that some of the mediocre DCPS options available might be preferable. That is neither an indictment of all charters nor an endorsement of all DCPS but a practical comparison between a poorly run and poorly performing charter and some DCPS options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does TR really do “expeditionary learning” in older grades?

There are attempts in some classrooms. Its not a robust curriculum approach past kindergarten.

The problem is that it is their official curriculum. So if it's not followed or not followed closely, what you get is a patchwork with no consistency. This is why they need to completely overhaul their curriculum. This is also one of the major reasons behind teacher attrition.

I think the reluctance to let go of EL is that they view it as a differentiator from DCPS and other charters. Without it it's really unclear what TR is offering.

This is also often a problem with Montessori charters in upper grades (past 3rd or so) which is why they often see a lot of attrition at that point as parents want to acclimate kids to a traditional classroom. But none of the Montessori schools abandon their principal method in K! Also Montessori has some real support as a method in ECE grades where's EL is just some trendy approach TR latched onto for some reason.

I'm sure that they do, but I've never really grasped what it is other than a bunch of field trips and like, projects about the field trips.

ITDS doesn't have any particular angle and yet is successful. I think the main thing they're offering is a small middle school, which some people love and some people don't want, and a very high adult-child ratio due to all the student teachers. And of course a bunch of high-SES kids and decent test scores. I wouldn't say the differentiation is really that good, they just have a lot of kids who are smart.

Your definition of "success" differs from my own. Also differs from what the word actually means. "Better than a lousy comparator" is not what that word means.

The truth is that very few charters at the elementary level are actually better academically than the average DCPS. If you adjust test scores by socioeconomic level, many charters are actually worse academically.

We are a former TR family now at a DCPS (and not one of the 3 on the Hill that gets talked about on here as "good") and I am not soured in charters completely. We will almost certainly try for charters for MS and HS. But I think at the elementary level charters that do not offer a significant differentiator from DCPS (like Montessori or immersion) should be held to very high standards academically.

Our DCPS experience has been really good and even though I don't regret going to TR for ECE I now realize that we would have better than okay at our IB DCPS for those years with the benefit of a short commute. We were overly swayed by people telling us it was a bad school.

Bolded is an oft repeated statement of nonsense repeated by so many of you "deep thinkers". I don't send my kid to a school to an ES to get their test scores up. I send them to a school where there are enough kids with high test scores that my kid won't be bored or warehoused. By this dumb logic, you should send your kid to any school with a 1% proficiency rate since your kid will be fine. It is ES.

You people and your fortune cookie logic amuse me.

There is a real debate to be had over which is better though:

A neighborhood DCPS with a high number of at risk kids resulting in overall poor test scores but a small cohort of high achieving kids (say 5-15 kids per grade who may be distributed across classes).

OR

A charter with a much smaller percent of at risk kids and overall higher test scores but where kids rarely if ever work above grade level and may receive a disjointed education with weak curriculum (so: Two Rivers).

Obviously neither are ideal. If you value having your kid in an ES with a large cohort of high achievers then neither of these are going to meet your expectations. The DCPS may have some high achievers but they will be very limited and your kid will definitely spend a lot of time doing solo work or having to sit through lessons that are review for them. However I will say that my experience with DCPS is that the high caliber of teachers at the ES level mean that high achieving kids absolutely ARE given above grade level work that challenges them and the schools often find ways to group advanced students so they can work forward. But yes there will be some boredom and just the general issue of your kid being at a school where most of the focus is going to be on trying to bring at risk students up to grade level.

On the other hand at the charter your kid isn't really in a group of high achievers either. At Two Rivers actual high achievers leave because there is nothing for them there. Kids who are right on grade level do fine and then the school is not very good at moving kids who are below grade level up. The main advantage you will get at a school like this is social -- plenty of kids with a similar background and thus plenty of parents with a similar background so it may be overall a more pleasant experience. But it's unlikely your child will be challenged and they certainly are not getting the benefit of a high achieving cohort.

Those are the options being discussed in this thread. If you are looking for a school with a large cohort of high achievers you will need to look elsewhere altogether. The problem of course is that if your IB is say JO Wilson and the best alternative you can get into is TR you may not have other options unless you move or keep playing the lottery and hope you get a hit.

You don’t think high achievers leave in DCPS schools too esp if there is a huge achievement gap and the overwhelming majority of kids are working below grade level??

They sure do by the masses because the school has nothing to offer them. Just look at the composition of the kids in ECE compared to 2nd or 3rd.

The difference between schools above and some charters is that some charters have much better scores and significantly more kids at or above grade level so they can actually teach grade level content.

They don't because this is DCUM. The anti-charter folks live in a fantasy world where (1) high achieving kids in DCPS don't flee to BASIS, Latin, privates or the burbs, (2) where DCPS Central is a perfectly functioning bureaucracy that wastes no money and provides all necessary support, (3) tenured teachers in DCPS are never dead weight and abusive to kids and admins - they are all staffed from Dead Poet's Society, (4) Principals and admins in DCPS are wonderfully nurturing and don't get and keep their jobs largely playing DCPS Central's games and kissing the butts of the Chancellor and the trolls in Central.

You sound exceedingly bitter.

You must be new here. The obviously sarcastic post pretty well sums much of the anti-charter pablum on DCUM. Go back and re-read just this thread. The way people wax philosophic about DCPS and how well run Central is does not reflect reality. No one who has ever had a serious issue with DCPS or a tenured teacher would be lecturing on the advocate or paths of escalation. Why do you think so many people resort to suing DCPS? DCPS Central is a black hole of money and power struggles. Many tenured teachers are terrible and there is nothing to be done about them. The Chancellor thumbs his nose at the Council and rejects all oversight. DCPS is a freight train that takes years to course correct.

None of which is to say all DCPS schools are bad or all teachers are bad. This is a nuanced discussion. The point is that it is as ignorant to equate Eastern and JR as it is to equate all charter schools.

This site is generally used to inform school choice in DC. A bitterly anti-DCPS screed is just dumb. I'm pro-charter and pro-DCPS. There's more like me than people who take one side and rant about it.

The point of the post was to exaggerate the anti-charter, DCPS as panacea posts that predominated the thread. If you aren't smart enough to understand hyperbole and sarcasm then maybe log off the interwebs?

It was a stupid post in a thread that was actually not engaging in any sort of anti-charter rhetoric, but instead a mostly measured discussion of charter and DCPS experiences.

Yeah i have not read any of this thread as high praise for DCPS but rather a discussion of whether TR is so bad that some of the mediocre DCPS options available might be preferable. That is neither an indictment of all charters nor an endorsement of all DCPS but a practical comparison between a poorly run and poorly performing charter and some DCPS options.

Yes, correct. Thanks.

-Madison

NP. Capitol Hill mean girls have arrived!

I live on Capitol Hill and don't understand who Madison is or who the "Capitol Hill mean girls" are. Can you educate me?

Apparently pointing out that this thread was actually a fairly nuanced and measured discussion of schools makes us “Capitol Hill Mean Girls.” Also mean girl behavior: saying you’re happy with your kid’s school.

The fascinating thing to me is that in a thread about Two Rivers there is not a single Two Rivers parent saying "I am happy with my kid's school." But apparently other people saying this about their school is "mean." Because TR families know their school is not very good but don't want to actually say so.

I have no dog in this fight , and am not a TR parent, but I do know families at the middle school who are happy there - they do exist. I also think that this anonymous forum is not the most representative sample set for many categories/conversations. As has been said many times in various threads, it is not that the things people say here are inherently false, but it is more that there are tons of people who don't have the time or inclination to come on here and read/engage, so you are never getting the full side of any story.

There are a lot of CH parents on this forum though including a lot of people who either have or have had kids at TR -- I am a former TR parent and if you look at any of the other TR threads you see tons of engagement from people (the Covid-era threads about the school's policies around in person and that survey they did of the community were particularly active but there have been others since).

I do not think it is a coincidence that there aren't any actual TR boosters on this thread. We left a while ago and most (but not quite all) of the families we were close to there have also left. What people have talked about on this thread is spot on in terms of there being quite a bit of unhappiness among families especially once you get to middle elementary but the culture of the school is such that saying anything other than "Yay! This school is the BEST!" is not really acceptable. I honestly think people are afraid to speak up because any honest assessment of the school would be balanced between positives and negatives and there is simply no room in the school culture for negatives. So people say nothing because they know a rave review would be dishonest (the school has issues) but they also fear even on an anonymous forum saying anything critical about the school.

That's why the only TR parents posting in here are former. I guarantee current families are viewing the thread but there are reasons they aren't posting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does TR really do “expeditionary learning” in older grades?

There are attempts in some classrooms. Its not a robust curriculum approach past kindergarten.

The problem is that it is their official curriculum. So if it's not followed or not followed closely, what you get is a patchwork with no consistency. This is why they need to completely overhaul their curriculum. This is also one of the major reasons behind teacher attrition.

I think the reluctance to let go of EL is that they view it as a differentiator from DCPS and other charters. Without it it's really unclear what TR is offering.

This is also often a problem with Montessori charters in upper grades (past 3rd or so) which is why they often see a lot of attrition at that point as parents want to acclimate kids to a traditional classroom. But none of the Montessori schools abandon their principal method in K! Also Montessori has some real support as a method in ECE grades where's EL is just some trendy approach TR latched onto for some reason.

I'm sure that they do, but I've never really grasped what it is other than a bunch of field trips and like, projects about the field trips.

ITDS doesn't have any particular angle and yet is successful. I think the main thing they're offering is a small middle school, which some people love and some people don't want, and a very high adult-child ratio due to all the student teachers. And of course a bunch of high-SES kids and decent test scores. I wouldn't say the differentiation is really that good, they just have a lot of kids who are smart.

Your definition of "success" differs from my own. Also differs from what the word actually means. "Better than a lousy comparator" is not what that word means.

The truth is that very few charters at the elementary level are actually better academically than the average DCPS. If you adjust test scores by socioeconomic level, many charters are actually worse academically.

We are a former TR family now at a DCPS (and not one of the 3 on the Hill that gets talked about on here as "good") and I am not soured in charters completely. We will almost certainly try for charters for MS and HS. But I think at the elementary level charters that do not offer a significant differentiator from DCPS (like Montessori or immersion) should be held to very high standards academically.

Our DCPS experience has been really good and even though I don't regret going to TR for ECE I now realize that we would have better than okay at our IB DCPS for those years with the benefit of a short commute. We were overly swayed by people telling us it was a bad school.

Bolded is an oft repeated statement of nonsense repeated by so many of you "deep thinkers". I don't send my kid to a school to an ES to get their test scores up. I send them to a school where there are enough kids with high test scores that my kid won't be bored or warehoused. By this dumb logic, you should send your kid to any school with a 1% proficiency rate since your kid will be fine. It is ES.

You people and your fortune cookie logic amuse me.

There is a real debate to be had over which is better though:

A neighborhood DCPS with a high number of at risk kids resulting in overall poor test scores but a small cohort of high achieving kids (say 5-15 kids per grade who may be distributed across classes).

OR

A charter with a much smaller percent of at risk kids and overall higher test scores but where kids rarely if ever work above grade level and may receive a disjointed education with weak curriculum (so: Two Rivers).

Obviously neither are ideal. If you value having your kid in an ES with a large cohort of high achievers then neither of these are going to meet your expectations. The DCPS may have some high achievers but they will be very limited and your kid will definitely spend a lot of time doing solo work or having to sit through lessons that are review for them. However I will say that my experience with DCPS is that the high caliber of teachers at the ES level mean that high achieving kids absolutely ARE given above grade level work that challenges them and the schools often find ways to group advanced students so they can work forward. But yes there will be some boredom and just the general issue of your kid being at a school where most of the focus is going to be on trying to bring at risk students up to grade level.

On the other hand at the charter your kid isn't really in a group of high achievers either. At Two Rivers actual high achievers leave because there is nothing for them there. Kids who are right on grade level do fine and then the school is not very good at moving kids who are below grade level up. The main advantage you will get at a school like this is social -- plenty of kids with a similar background and thus plenty of parents with a similar background so it may be overall a more pleasant experience. But it's unlikely your child will be challenged and they certainly are not getting the benefit of a high achieving cohort.

Those are the options being discussed in this thread. If you are looking for a school with a large cohort of high achievers you will need to look elsewhere altogether. The problem of course is that if your IB is say JO Wilson and the best alternative you can get into is TR you may not have other options unless you move or keep playing the lottery and hope you get a hit.

You don’t think high achievers leave in DCPS schools too esp if there is a huge achievement gap and the overwhelming majority of kids are working below grade level??

They sure do by the masses because the school has nothing to offer them. Just look at the composition of the kids in ECE compared to 2nd or 3rd.

The difference between schools above and some charters is that some charters have much better scores and significantly more kids at or above grade level so they can actually teach grade level content.

They don't because this is DCUM. The anti-charter folks live in a fantasy world where (1) high achieving kids in DCPS don't flee to BASIS, Latin, privates or the burbs, (2) where DCPS Central is a perfectly functioning bureaucracy that wastes no money and provides all necessary support, (3) tenured teachers in DCPS are never dead weight and abusive to kids and admins - they are all staffed from Dead Poet's Society, (4) Principals and admins in DCPS are wonderfully nurturing and don't get and keep their jobs largely playing DCPS Central's games and kissing the butts of the Chancellor and the trolls in Central.

You sound exceedingly bitter.

You must be new here. The obviously sarcastic post pretty well sums much of the anti-charter pablum on DCUM. Go back and re-read just this thread. The way people wax philosophic about DCPS and how well run Central is does not reflect reality. No one who has ever had a serious issue with DCPS or a tenured teacher would be lecturing on the advocate or paths of escalation. Why do you think so many people resort to suing DCPS? DCPS Central is a black hole of money and power struggles. Many tenured teachers are terrible and there is nothing to be done about them. The Chancellor thumbs his nose at the Council and rejects all oversight. DCPS is a freight train that takes years to course correct.

None of which is to say all DCPS schools are bad or all teachers are bad. This is a nuanced discussion. The point is that it is as ignorant to equate Eastern and JR as it is to equate all charter schools.

This site is generally used to inform school choice in DC. A bitterly anti-DCPS screed is just dumb. I'm pro-charter and pro-DCPS. There's more like me than people who take one side and rant about it.

The point of the post was to exaggerate the anti-charter, DCPS as panacea posts that predominated the thread. If you aren't smart enough to understand hyperbole and sarcasm then maybe log off the interwebs?

It was a stupid post in a thread that was actually not engaging in any sort of anti-charter rhetoric, but instead a mostly measured discussion of charter and DCPS experiences.

Yeah i have not read any of this thread as high praise for DCPS but rather a discussion of whether TR is so bad that some of the mediocre DCPS options available might be preferable. That is neither an indictment of all charters nor an endorsement of all DCPS but a practical comparison between a poorly run and poorly performing charter and some DCPS options.

Yes, correct. Thanks.

-Madison

NP. Capitol Hill mean girls have arrived!

I live on Capitol Hill and don't understand who Madison is or who the "Capitol Hill mean girls" are. Can you educate me?

Apparently pointing out that this thread was actually a fairly nuanced and measured discussion of schools makes us “Capitol Hill Mean Girls.” Also mean girl behavior: saying you’re happy with your kid’s school.

The fascinating thing to me is that in a thread about Two Rivers there is not a single Two Rivers parent saying "I am happy with my kid's school." But apparently other people saying this about their school is "mean." Because TR families know their school is not very good but don't want to actually say so.

I don't think anyone argued saying nice things about your school makes you a mean girl. The piling on from people engaging in delusional thoughts about how well run DCPS is, or ignoring the usual anti-charter garbage masquerading as reasonable commentary on TR (or any other school) and the inevitable "you go girl" chorus is. I am not defending TR. I am taking issue with people choosing to make TR's failures about more than just TR's failures, as well as the CH and W3 parents living in their bunkers believing that all DCPS schools are as good as theirs.

We all know the rules. You are free to say nice things about any school....except BASIS. That makes you a booster and child abused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does TR really do “expeditionary learning” in older grades?

There are attempts in some classrooms. Its not a robust curriculum approach past kindergarten.

The problem is that it is their official curriculum. So if it's not followed or not followed closely, what you get is a patchwork with no consistency. This is why they need to completely overhaul their curriculum. This is also one of the major reasons behind teacher attrition.

I think the reluctance to let go of EL is that they view it as a differentiator from DCPS and other charters. Without it it's really unclear what TR is offering.

This is also often a problem with Montessori charters in upper grades (past 3rd or so) which is why they often see a lot of attrition at that point as parents want to acclimate kids to a traditional classroom. But none of the Montessori schools abandon their principal method in K! Also Montessori has some real support as a method in ECE grades where's EL is just some trendy approach TR latched onto for some reason.

I'm sure that they do, but I've never really grasped what it is other than a bunch of field trips and like, projects about the field trips.

ITDS doesn't have any particular angle and yet is successful. I think the main thing they're offering is a small middle school, which some people love and some people don't want, and a very high adult-child ratio due to all the student teachers. And of course a bunch of high-SES kids and decent test scores. I wouldn't say the differentiation is really that good, they just have a lot of kids who are smart.

Your definition of "success" differs from my own. Also differs from what the word actually means. "Better than a lousy comparator" is not what that word means.

The truth is that very few charters at the elementary level are actually better academically than the average DCPS. If you adjust test scores by socioeconomic level, many charters are actually worse academically.

We are a former TR family now at a DCPS (and not one of the 3 on the Hill that gets talked about on here as "good") and I am not soured in charters completely. We will almost certainly try for charters for MS and HS. But I think at the elementary level charters that do not offer a significant differentiator from DCPS (like Montessori or immersion) should be held to very high standards academically.

Our DCPS experience has been really good and even though I don't regret going to TR for ECE I now realize that we would have better than okay at our IB DCPS for those years with the benefit of a short commute. We were overly swayed by people telling us it was a bad school.

Bolded is an oft repeated statement of nonsense repeated by so many of you "deep thinkers". I don't send my kid to a school to an ES to get their test scores up. I send them to a school where there are enough kids with high test scores that my kid won't be bored or warehoused. By this dumb logic, you should send your kid to any school with a 1% proficiency rate since your kid will be fine. It is ES.

You people and your fortune cookie logic amuse me.

There is a real debate to be had over which is better though:

A neighborhood DCPS with a high number of at risk kids resulting in overall poor test scores but a small cohort of high achieving kids (say 5-15 kids per grade who may be distributed across classes).

OR

A charter with a much smaller percent of at risk kids and overall higher test scores but where kids rarely if ever work above grade level and may receive a disjointed education with weak curriculum (so: Two Rivers).

Obviously neither are ideal. If you value having your kid in an ES with a large cohort of high achievers then neither of these are going to meet your expectations. The DCPS may have some high achievers but they will be very limited and your kid will definitely spend a lot of time doing solo work or having to sit through lessons that are review for them. However I will say that my experience with DCPS is that the high caliber of teachers at the ES level mean that high achieving kids absolutely ARE given above grade level work that challenges them and the schools often find ways to group advanced students so they can work forward. But yes there will be some boredom and just the general issue of your kid being at a school where most of the focus is going to be on trying to bring at risk students up to grade level.

On the other hand at the charter your kid isn't really in a group of high achievers either. At Two Rivers actual high achievers leave because there is nothing for them there. Kids who are right on grade level do fine and then the school is not very good at moving kids who are below grade level up. The main advantage you will get at a school like this is social -- plenty of kids with a similar background and thus plenty of parents with a similar background so it may be overall a more pleasant experience. But it's unlikely your child will be challenged and they certainly are not getting the benefit of a high achieving cohort.

Those are the options being discussed in this thread. If you are looking for a school with a large cohort of high achievers you will need to look elsewhere altogether. The problem of course is that if your IB is say JO Wilson and the best alternative you can get into is TR you may not have other options unless you move or keep playing the lottery and hope you get a hit.

You don’t think high achievers leave in DCPS schools too esp if there is a huge achievement gap and the overwhelming majority of kids are working below grade level??

They sure do by the masses because the school has nothing to offer them. Just look at the composition of the kids in ECE compared to 2nd or 3rd.

The difference between schools above and some charters is that some charters have much better scores and significantly more kids at or above grade level so they can actually teach grade level content.

They don't because this is DCUM. The anti-charter folks live in a fantasy world where (1) high achieving kids in DCPS don't flee to BASIS, Latin, privates or the burbs, (2) where DCPS Central is a perfectly functioning bureaucracy that wastes no money and provides all necessary support, (3) tenured teachers in DCPS are never dead weight and abusive to kids and admins - they are all staffed from Dead Poet's Society, (4) Principals and admins in DCPS are wonderfully nurturing and don't get and keep their jobs largely playing DCPS Central's games and kissing the butts of the Chancellor and the trolls in Central.

You sound exceedingly bitter.

You must be new here. The obviously sarcastic post pretty well sums much of the anti-charter pablum on DCUM. Go back and re-read just this thread. The way people wax philosophic about DCPS and how well run Central is does not reflect reality. No one who has ever had a serious issue with DCPS or a tenured teacher would be lecturing on the advocate or paths of escalation. Why do you think so many people resort to suing DCPS? DCPS Central is a black hole of money and power struggles. Many tenured teachers are terrible and there is nothing to be done about them. The Chancellor thumbs his nose at the Council and rejects all oversight. DCPS is a freight train that takes years to course correct.

None of which is to say all DCPS schools are bad or all teachers are bad. This is a nuanced discussion. The point is that it is as ignorant to equate Eastern and JR as it is to equate all charter schools.

This site is generally used to inform school choice in DC. A bitterly anti-DCPS screed is just dumb. I'm pro-charter and pro-DCPS. There's more like me than people who take one side and rant about it.

The point of the post was to exaggerate the anti-charter, DCPS as panacea posts that predominated the thread. If you aren't smart enough to understand hyperbole and sarcasm then maybe log off the interwebs?

It was a stupid post in a thread that was actually not engaging in any sort of anti-charter rhetoric, but instead a mostly measured discussion of charter and DCPS experiences.

Yeah i have not read any of this thread as high praise for DCPS but rather a discussion of whether TR is so bad that some of the mediocre DCPS options available might be preferable. That is neither an indictment of all charters nor an endorsement of all DCPS but a practical comparison between a poorly run and poorly performing charter and some DCPS options.

Yes, correct. Thanks.

-Madison

NP. Capitol Hill mean girls have arrived!

I live on Capitol Hill and don't understand who Madison is or who the "Capitol Hill mean girls" are. Can you educate me?

Apparently pointing out that this thread was actually a fairly nuanced and measured discussion of schools makes us “Capitol Hill Mean Girls.” Also mean girl behavior: saying you’re happy with your kid’s school.

The fascinating thing to me is that in a thread about Two Rivers there is not a single Two Rivers parent saying "I am happy with my kid's school." But apparently other people saying this about their school is "mean." Because TR families know their school is not very good but don't want to actually say so.

I don't think anyone argued saying nice things about your school makes you a mean girl. The piling on from people engaging in delusional thoughts about how well run DCPS is, or ignoring the usual anti-charter garbage masquerading as reasonable commentary on TR (or any other school) and the inevitable "you go girl" chorus is. I am not defending TR. I am taking issue with people choosing to make TR's failures about more than just TR's failures, as well as the CH and W3 parents living in their bunkers believing that all DCPS schools are as good as theirs.

We all know the rules. You are free to say nice things about any school....except BASIS. That makes you a booster and child abused.

I think you are reading into things based on your own biases and sensitivities. I really have not seen that in this thread.

I am a PP who used to have kids at TR and I am the one who said that the experience soured me on charters and that we are happy to be at a DCPS now. But if you read my post you will see that I am not saying all charters are bad -- I just realized what the inherent downsides to charters are while at TR. We have friends at charters who are very happy. But we were not happy at TR and it was directly linked to the fact that it's a charter -- there was a lack of accountability there and in particular the issues with the curriculum were very frustrating and when it was obvious that it was NOT working for middle and upper elementary it was frustrating that there wasn't an alternative.

Also as a current DCPS parent I have ZERO problems talking about both issues with DCPS and with our school specifically. I have also found this to be true of most parents in DCPS and after several years at TR where there is really not a lot of frank discussion about shortcomings this has been refreshing. I also recognize that our school (which is not in W3 or one of the schools in W6 that people view as high quality) is not for everyone -- I think there are specific kids who would do better elsewhere but I don't think kids do better at TR than they do where we are now. I also think our current school is better run (perhaps just barely but yes) and the big advantages I see are having a really solid curriculum and very experienced and skilled teachers (who make more money and have a much longer tenure in their current jobs than any teachers we had at TR). Having seen both I now recognize that these are the advantages to DCPS -- they do have a solid curriculum approach that is very tested and well known and the teachers are great.

If this strikes you as "charter bashing" or "DCPS boosterism" I don't know what to tell you. I don't think charters are universally bad or that DCPS is universally good but I can tell you that our Ward 6 Title 1 is better than Two Rivers. This is practically useful for other Ward 6 (or other nearby) families who may have misgivings about their IB and be considering TR. I would recommend giving the IB a try not because I think it's going to be the best school ever (you can try it and continue to lottery after all) but because I don't think TR is a great alternative and would not be worth the extra commute especially not for ECE which is where a lot of DCPS schools are strongest anyway. Just my two cents having seen it from both sides.

[Anonymous]

Two Rivers was extremely popular with a long waitlist before the pandemic. People who got in largely took the spots. Post-pandemic, you have a lot of people happy enough but sort of just holding on for middle school lottery or unhappy enough to leave and then pleasantly surprised by DCPS. Lots of Hill area DCPS schools have OOB lottery spaces available in the upper grades and lots of TR families are inbounds for Ludlow, Watkins, Payne, SH, EH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two Rivers was extremely popular with a long waitlist before the pandemic. People who got in largely took the spots. Post-pandemic, you have a lot of people happy enough but sort of just holding on for middle school lottery or unhappy enough to leave and then pleasantly surprised by DCPS. Lots of Hill area DCPS schools have OOB lottery spaces available in the upper grades and lots of TR families are inbounds for Ludlow, Watkins, Payne, SH, EH.

+1 it's just a different school now. We do the lottery every year just to see what is out there and we have gotten into TR each of the last 3 years (for K, 1st, 2nd and PK3 -- Our 2nd grader pulled the PK3er in this last year). We always turn down the spots but it's actually the only W6 school we've gotten offers at every single year. I think this is why they continue to fill out classes -- other schools are harder to get into unless you have an IB or other priority but at TR you can get a spot pretty easily most years past PK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does TR really do “expeditionary learning” in older grades?

There are attempts in some classrooms. Its not a robust curriculum approach past kindergarten.

The problem is that it is their official curriculum. So if it's not followed or not followed closely, what you get is a patchwork with no consistency. This is why they need to completely overhaul their curriculum. This is also one of the major reasons behind teacher attrition.

I think the reluctance to let go of EL is that they view it as a differentiator from DCPS and other charters. Without it it's really unclear what TR is offering.

This is also often a problem with Montessori charters in upper grades (past 3rd or so) which is why they often see a lot of attrition at that point as parents want to acclimate kids to a traditional classroom. But none of the Montessori schools abandon their principal method in K! Also Montessori has some real support as a method in ECE grades where's EL is just some trendy approach TR latched onto for some reason.

I'm sure that they do, but I've never really grasped what it is other than a bunch of field trips and like, projects about the field trips.

ITDS doesn't have any particular angle and yet is successful. I think the main thing they're offering is a small middle school, which some people love and some people don't want, and a very high adult-child ratio due to all the student teachers. And of course a bunch of high-SES kids and decent test scores. I wouldn't say the differentiation is really that good, they just have a lot of kids who are smart.

Your definition of "success" differs from my own. Also differs from what the word actually means. "Better than a lousy comparator" is not what that word means.

The truth is that very few charters at the elementary level are actually better academically than the average DCPS. If you adjust test scores by socioeconomic level, many charters are actually worse academically.

We are a former TR family now at a DCPS (and not one of the 3 on the Hill that gets talked about on here as "good") and I am not soured in charters completely. We will almost certainly try for charters for MS and HS. But I think at the elementary level charters that do not offer a significant differentiator from DCPS (like Montessori or immersion) should be held to very high standards academically.

Our DCPS experience has been really good and even though I don't regret going to TR for ECE I now realize that we would have better than okay at our IB DCPS for those years with the benefit of a short commute. We were overly swayed by people telling us it was a bad school.

Bolded is an oft repeated statement of nonsense repeated by so many of you "deep thinkers". I don't send my kid to a school to an ES to get their test scores up. I send them to a school where there are enough kids with high test scores that my kid won't be bored or warehoused. By this dumb logic, you should send your kid to any school with a 1% proficiency rate since your kid will be fine. It is ES.

You people and your fortune cookie logic amuse me.

There is a real debate to be had over which is better though:

A neighborhood DCPS with a high number of at risk kids resulting in overall poor test scores but a small cohort of high achieving kids (say 5-15 kids per grade who may be distributed across classes).

OR

A charter with a much smaller percent of at risk kids and overall higher test scores but where kids rarely if ever work above grade level and may receive a disjointed education with weak curriculum (so: Two Rivers).

Obviously neither are ideal. If you value having your kid in an ES with a large cohort of high achievers then neither of these are going to meet your expectations. The DCPS may have some high achievers but they will be very limited and your kid will definitely spend a lot of time doing solo work or having to sit through lessons that are review for them. However I will say that my experience with DCPS is that the high caliber of teachers at the ES level mean that high achieving kids absolutely ARE given above grade level work that challenges them and the schools often find ways to group advanced students so they can work forward. But yes there will be some boredom and just the general issue of your kid being at a school where most of the focus is going to be on trying to bring at risk students up to grade level.

On the other hand at the charter your kid isn't really in a group of high achievers either. At Two Rivers actual high achievers leave because there is nothing for them there. Kids who are right on grade level do fine and then the school is not very good at moving kids who are below grade level up. The main advantage you will get at a school like this is social -- plenty of kids with a similar background and thus plenty of parents with a similar background so it may be overall a more pleasant experience. But it's unlikely your child will be challenged and they certainly are not getting the benefit of a high achieving cohort.

Those are the options being discussed in this thread. If you are looking for a school with a large cohort of high achievers you will need to look elsewhere altogether. The problem of course is that if your IB is say JO Wilson and the best alternative you can get into is TR you may not have other options unless you move or keep playing the lottery and hope you get a hit.

You don’t think high achievers leave in DCPS schools too esp if there is a huge achievement gap and the overwhelming majority of kids are working below grade level??

They sure do by the masses because the school has nothing to offer them. Just look at the composition of the kids in ECE compared to 2nd or 3rd.

The difference between schools above and some charters is that some charters have much better scores and significantly more kids at or above grade level so they can actually teach grade level content.

They don't because this is DCUM. The anti-charter folks live in a fantasy world where (1) high achieving kids in DCPS don't flee to BASIS, Latin, privates or the burbs, (2) where DCPS Central is a perfectly functioning bureaucracy that wastes no money and provides all necessary support, (3) tenured teachers in DCPS are never dead weight and abusive to kids and admins - they are all staffed from Dead Poet's Society, (4) Principals and admins in DCPS are wonderfully nurturing and don't get and keep their jobs largely playing DCPS Central's games and kissing the butts of the Chancellor and the trolls in Central.

You sound exceedingly bitter.

You must be new here. The obviously sarcastic post pretty well sums much of the anti-charter pablum on DCUM. Go back and re-read just this thread. The way people wax philosophic about DCPS and how well run Central is does not reflect reality. No one who has ever had a serious issue with DCPS or a tenured teacher would be lecturing on the advocate or paths of escalation. Why do you think so many people resort to suing DCPS? DCPS Central is a black hole of money and power struggles. Many tenured teachers are terrible and there is nothing to be done about them. The Chancellor thumbs his nose at the Council and rejects all oversight. DCPS is a freight train that takes years to course correct.

None of which is to say all DCPS schools are bad or all teachers are bad. This is a nuanced discussion. The point is that it is as ignorant to equate Eastern and JR as it is to equate all charter schools.

This site is generally used to inform school choice in DC. A bitterly anti-DCPS screed is just dumb. I'm pro-charter and pro-DCPS. There's more like me than people who take one side and rant about it.

The point of the post was to exaggerate the anti-charter, DCPS as panacea posts that predominated the thread. If you aren't smart enough to understand hyperbole and sarcasm then maybe log off the interwebs?

It was a stupid post in a thread that was actually not engaging in any sort of anti-charter rhetoric, but instead a mostly measured discussion of charter and DCPS experiences.

Yeah i have not read any of this thread as high praise for DCPS but rather a discussion of whether TR is so bad that some of the mediocre DCPS options available might be preferable. That is neither an indictment of all charters nor an endorsement of all DCPS but a practical comparison between a poorly run and poorly performing charter and some DCPS options.

Yes, correct. Thanks.

-Madison

NP. Capitol Hill mean girls have arrived!

I live on Capitol Hill and don't understand who Madison is or who the "Capitol Hill mean girls" are. Can you educate me?

Apparently pointing out that this thread was actually a fairly nuanced and measured discussion of schools makes us “Capitol Hill Mean Girls.” Also mean girl behavior: saying you’re happy with your kid’s school.

The fascinating thing to me is that in a thread about Two Rivers there is not a single Two Rivers parent saying "I am happy with my kid's school." But apparently other people saying this about their school is "mean." Because TR families know their school is not very good but don't want to actually say so.

I don't think anyone argued saying nice things about your school makes you a mean girl. The piling on from people engaging in delusional thoughts about how well run DCPS is, or ignoring the usual anti-charter garbage masquerading as reasonable commentary on TR (or any other school) and the inevitable "you go girl" chorus is. I am not defending TR. I am taking issue with people choosing to make TR's failures about more than just TR's failures, as well as the CH and W3 parents living in their bunkers believing that all DCPS schools are as good as theirs.

We all know the rules. You are free to say nice things about any school....except BASIS. That makes you a booster and child abused.

I think you are reading into things based on your own biases and sensitivities. I really have not seen that in this thread.

I am a PP who used to have kids at TR and I am the one who said that the experience soured me on charters and that we are happy to be at a DCPS now. But if you read my post you will see that I am not saying all charters are bad -- I just realized what the inherent downsides to charters are while at TR. We have friends at charters who are very happy. But we were not happy at TR and it was directly linked to the fact that it's a charter -- there was a lack of accountability there and in particular the issues with the curriculum were very frustrating and when it was obvious that it was NOT working for middle and upper elementary it was frustrating that there wasn't an alternative.

Bolded is nonsense. Lots of DCPS schools fail kids as well. It isn't because TR is a charter, it is because they do a lousy job teaching and there are serious behavioral issues in upper grades. The curriculum has been the same since day one and it used to be much better. I don't think you know what "curriculum" means. The "accountability" you and others speak so freely about is WTU talking point. There is NOOOOOO accountability for bad teachers or bad admins in DCPS. At best they get shifted to other schools. On the rare occasion when teachers are terminated, in almost every case they are reinstated with back pay by the appeals process.

None of this is to say TR is a good school. Or all DCPS schools are bad schools. My issue is with people like you trying to fit your narrative into the facts you have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two Rivers was extremely popular with a long waitlist before the pandemic. People who got in largely took the spots. Post-pandemic, you have a lot of people happy enough but sort of just holding on for middle school lottery or unhappy enough to leave and then pleasantly surprised by DCPS. Lots of Hill area DCPS schools have OOB lottery spaces available in the upper grades and lots of TR families are inbounds for Ludlow, Watkins, Payne, SH, EH.

Not really "lots" at these schools. The numbers are upthread. I think it was like 12 or 13 for L-T & Watkins across the whole school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does TR really do “expeditionary learning” in older grades?

There are attempts in some classrooms. Its not a robust curriculum approach past kindergarten.

The problem is that it is their official curriculum. So if it's not followed or not followed closely, what you get is a patchwork with no consistency. This is why they need to completely overhaul their curriculum. This is also one of the major reasons behind teacher attrition.

I think the reluctance to let go of EL is that they view it as a differentiator from DCPS and other charters. Without it it's really unclear what TR is offering.

This is also often a problem with Montessori charters in upper grades (past 3rd or so) which is why they often see a lot of attrition at that point as parents want to acclimate kids to a traditional classroom. But none of the Montessori schools abandon their principal method in K! Also Montessori has some real support as a method in ECE grades where's EL is just some trendy approach TR latched onto for some reason.

I'm sure that they do, but I've never really grasped what it is other than a bunch of field trips and like, projects about the field trips.

ITDS doesn't have any particular angle and yet is successful. I think the main thing they're offering is a small middle school, which some people love and some people don't want, and a very high adult-child ratio due to all the student teachers. And of course a bunch of high-SES kids and decent test scores. I wouldn't say the differentiation is really that good, they just have a lot of kids who are smart.

Your definition of "success" differs from my own. Also differs from what the word actually means. "Better than a lousy comparator" is not what that word means.

The truth is that very few charters at the elementary level are actually better academically than the average DCPS. If you adjust test scores by socioeconomic level, many charters are actually worse academically.

We are a former TR family now at a DCPS (and not one of the 3 on the Hill that gets talked about on here as "good") and I am not soured in charters completely. We will almost certainly try for charters for MS and HS. But I think at the elementary level charters that do not offer a significant differentiator from DCPS (like Montessori or immersion) should be held to very high standards academically.

Our DCPS experience has been really good and even though I don't regret going to TR for ECE I now realize that we would have better than okay at our IB DCPS for those years with the benefit of a short commute. We were overly swayed by people telling us it was a bad school.

Bolded is an oft repeated statement of nonsense repeated by so many of you "deep thinkers". I don't send my kid to a school to an ES to get their test scores up. I send them to a school where there are enough kids with high test scores that my kid won't be bored or warehoused. By this dumb logic, you should send your kid to any school with a 1% proficiency rate since your kid will be fine. It is ES.

You people and your fortune cookie logic amuse me.

There is a real debate to be had over which is better though:

A neighborhood DCPS with a high number of at risk kids resulting in overall poor test scores but a small cohort of high achieving kids (say 5-15 kids per grade who may be distributed across classes).

OR

A charter with a much smaller percent of at risk kids and overall higher test scores but where kids rarely if ever work above grade level and may receive a disjointed education with weak curriculum (so: Two Rivers).

Obviously neither are ideal. If you value having your kid in an ES with a large cohort of high achievers then neither of these are going to meet your expectations. The DCPS may have some high achievers but they will be very limited and your kid will definitely spend a lot of time doing solo work or having to sit through lessons that are review for them. However I will say that my experience with DCPS is that the high caliber of teachers at the ES level mean that high achieving kids absolutely ARE given above grade level work that challenges them and the schools often find ways to group advanced students so they can work forward. But yes there will be some boredom and just the general issue of your kid being at a school where most of the focus is going to be on trying to bring at risk students up to grade level.

On the other hand at the charter your kid isn't really in a group of high achievers either. At Two Rivers actual high achievers leave because there is nothing for them there. Kids who are right on grade level do fine and then the school is not very good at moving kids who are below grade level up. The main advantage you will get at a school like this is social -- plenty of kids with a similar background and thus plenty of parents with a similar background so it may be overall a more pleasant experience. But it's unlikely your child will be challenged and they certainly are not getting the benefit of a high achieving cohort.

Those are the options being discussed in this thread. If you are looking for a school with a large cohort of high achievers you will need to look elsewhere altogether. The problem of course is that if your IB is say JO Wilson and the best alternative you can get into is TR you may not have other options unless you move or keep playing the lottery and hope you get a hit.

You don’t think high achievers leave in DCPS schools too esp if there is a huge achievement gap and the overwhelming majority of kids are working below grade level??

They sure do by the masses because the school has nothing to offer them. Just look at the composition of the kids in ECE compared to 2nd or 3rd.

The difference between schools above and some charters is that some charters have much better scores and significantly more kids at or above grade level so they can actually teach grade level content.

They don't because this is DCUM. The anti-charter folks live in a fantasy world where (1) high achieving kids in DCPS don't flee to BASIS, Latin, privates or the burbs, (2) where DCPS Central is a perfectly functioning bureaucracy that wastes no money and provides all necessary support, (3) tenured teachers in DCPS are never dead weight and abusive to kids and admins - they are all staffed from Dead Poet's Society, (4) Principals and admins in DCPS are wonderfully nurturing and don't get and keep their jobs largely playing DCPS Central's games and kissing the butts of the Chancellor and the trolls in Central.

You sound exceedingly bitter.

You must be new here. The obviously sarcastic post pretty well sums much of the anti-charter pablum on DCUM. Go back and re-read just this thread. The way people wax philosophic about DCPS and how well run Central is does not reflect reality. No one who has ever had a serious issue with DCPS or a tenured teacher would be lecturing on the advocate or paths of escalation. Why do you think so many people resort to suing DCPS? DCPS Central is a black hole of money and power struggles. Many tenured teachers are terrible and there is nothing to be done about them. The Chancellor thumbs his nose at the Council and rejects all oversight. DCPS is a freight train that takes years to course correct.

None of which is to say all DCPS schools are bad or all teachers are bad. This is a nuanced discussion. The point is that it is as ignorant to equate Eastern and JR as it is to equate all charter schools.

This site is generally used to inform school choice in DC. A bitterly anti-DCPS screed is just dumb. I'm pro-charter and pro-DCPS. There's more like me than people who take one side and rant about it.

The point of the post was to exaggerate the anti-charter, DCPS as panacea posts that predominated the thread. If you aren't smart enough to understand hyperbole and sarcasm then maybe log off the interwebs?

It was a stupid post in a thread that was actually not engaging in any sort of anti-charter rhetoric, but instead a mostly measured discussion of charter and DCPS experiences.

Yeah i have not read any of this thread as high praise for DCPS but rather a discussion of whether TR is so bad that some of the mediocre DCPS options available might be preferable. That is neither an indictment of all charters nor an endorsement of all DCPS but a practical comparison between a poorly run and poorly performing charter and some DCPS options.

Yes, correct. Thanks.

-Madison

NP. Capitol Hill mean girls have arrived!

I live on Capitol Hill and don't understand who Madison is or who the "Capitol Hill mean girls" are. Can you educate me?

Apparently pointing out that this thread was actually a fairly nuanced and measured discussion of schools makes us “Capitol Hill Mean Girls.” Also mean girl behavior: saying you’re happy with your kid’s school.

The fascinating thing to me is that in a thread about Two Rivers there is not a single Two Rivers parent saying "I am happy with my kid's school." But apparently other people saying this about their school is "mean." Because TR families know their school is not very good but don't want to actually say so.

I don't think anyone argued saying nice things about your school makes you a mean girl. The piling on from people engaging in delusional thoughts about how well run DCPS is, or ignoring the usual anti-charter garbage masquerading as reasonable commentary on TR (or any other school) and the inevitable "you go girl" chorus is. I am not defending TR. I am taking issue with people choosing to make TR's failures about more than just TR's failures, as well as the CH and W3 parents living in their bunkers believing that all DCPS schools are as good as theirs.

We all know the rules. You are free to say nice things about any school....except BASIS. That makes you a booster and child abused.

You need to take a long break. this was a more thoughtful thread than most on DCUM.

Why does anyone who disagrees with you need to take a break? Are you only interested in hearing from people who agree with you (like most Mean Girls)?