New BASIS discussion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gasp!! So exactly how many steps is that previous analogy removed from suggesting that "problem students" - or let's just say of this city's underachievers - should be treated like toxic waste? Maybe we should add scrubbers and filters (maybe we could go back to forcing infertility?), consider burying it with added layers of security (barbed wire maybe? let's make sure we set it up in a part of town that's not too precious, right?), and we'll certainly have to set up some process flow and tight regulations on where the remaining waste can be collected and discharged (maybe labeling and tracing it would be appropriate? the Germans had that sorted out pretty efficiently). Right, the next step would be burning it altogether.

The tragedy is that in fact that is what has been going on for decades, and when reform-minded people and charters come to at least TRY to fix it, they get shot down in a myriad ways by self-righteous yet clueless people like PP and most folks who voted for Gray vs. Fenty. Good job!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really - I hadn't noticed that all other schools list the degrees and universities for all of its teaching staff but leave off years of teaching experience for some teachers the way BASIS does.

They don't - hardly any school does. Latin, for example, doesn't list years of teaching experience for ANY of their staff.

http://www.latinpcs.org/pages/Washington_Latin_PCS/About_Us/Faculty_and_Staff

DC Prep Edgewood Middle PCS only shows a similar level of detail as BASIS, many don't list years of experience.

http://www.dcprep.org/Edgewood_Middle_Campus/Team_Bios

And those are the top two charters (by CAS results).

For DCPS, many likewise don't list years of experience or much detail either.

For all anyone knows, based on the various school websites, that same faulty "inexperienced faculty" assumption could be made of virtually any school in the district. PP really didn't display any good evidence, reasoning or factchecking prior to posting this assumption that Basis has an inexperienced faculty, let alone any conclusions drawn beyond that.

BASIS is trying to sell itself into a new market as something special, with superior teachers , so it seems the only reason they wouldn't specifically mention teaching experience for all teachers is because it doesn't help their case.

The evidence provided is lack of complete info about teaching experience. Rather than defend BASIS based on incomplete evidence of their staff's teaching experience, why not ask them to list the teaching experience of all their teachers and see how they react.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gasp!! So exactly how many steps is that previous analogy removed from suggesting that "problem students" - or let's just say of this city's underachievers - should be treated like toxic waste? Maybe we should add scrubbers and filters (maybe we could go back to forcing infertility?), consider burying it with added layers of security (barbed wire maybe? let's make sure we set it up in a part of town that's not too precious, right?), and we'll certainly have to set up some process flow and tight regulations on where the remaining waste can be collected and discharged (maybe labeling and tracing it would be appropriate? the Germans had that sorted out pretty efficiently). Right, the next step would be burning it altogether.

The tragedy is that in fact that is what has been going on for decades, and when reform-minded people and charters come to at least TRY to fix it, they get shot down in a myriad ways by self-righteous yet clueless people like PP and most folks who voted for Gray vs. Fenty. Good job!

Reform continued seamlessly under Gray - just as it would have under Fenty. Rhee's departure changed none of the policies she put in place. It's all about turning the schools into charters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really - I hadn't noticed that all other schools list the degrees and universities for all of its teaching staff but leave off years of teaching experience for some teachers the way BASIS does.

They don't - hardly any school does. Latin, for example, doesn't list years of teaching experience for ANY of their staff.

http://www.latinpcs.org/pages/Washington_Latin_PCS/About_Us/Faculty_and_Staff

DC Prep Edgewood Middle PCS only shows a similar level of detail as BASIS, many don't list years of experience.

http://www.dcprep.org/Edgewood_Middle_Campus/Team_Bios

And those are the top two charters (by CAS results).

For DCPS, many likewise don't list years of experience or much detail either.

For all anyone knows, based on the various school websites, that same faulty "inexperienced faculty" assumption could be made of virtually any school in the district. PP really didn't display any good evidence, reasoning or factchecking prior to posting this assumption that Basis has an inexperienced faculty, let alone any conclusions drawn beyond that.

BASIS is trying to sell itself into a new market as something special, with superior teachers , so it seems the only reason they wouldn't specifically mention teaching experience for all teachers is because it doesn't help their case.

The evidence provided is lack of complete info about teaching experience. Rather than defend BASIS based on incomplete evidence of their staff's teaching experience, why not ask them to list the teaching experience of all their teachers and see how they react.

No, it wasn't specifically about "superior teachers" - it was about a different model. You seem to be stuck on false premises.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gasp!! So exactly how many steps is that previous analogy removed from suggesting that "problem students" - or let's just say of this city's underachievers - should be treated like toxic waste? Maybe we should add scrubbers and filters (maybe we could go back to forcing infertility?), consider burying it with added layers of security (barbed wire maybe? let's make sure we set it up in a part of town that's not too precious, right?), and we'll certainly have to set up some process flow and tight regulations on where the remaining waste can be collected and discharged (maybe labeling and tracing it would be appropriate? the Germans had that sorted out pretty efficiently). Right, the next step would be burning it altogether.

The tragedy is that in fact that is what has been going on for decades, and when reform-minded people and charters come to at least TRY to fix it, they get shot down in a myriad ways by self-righteous yet clueless people like PP and most folks who voted for Gray vs. Fenty. Good job!

Reform continued seamlessly under Gray - just as it would have under Fenty. Rhee's departure changed none of the policies she put in place. It's all about turning the schools into charters.

Some reform continued - anything but "seamlessly." What matters most is not a few well-chosen words, but making the very tough decisions that need to happen. You don't get two leading horses out (Fenty, Rhee) in the middle of the race, and then claim it is all the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[
You're right, PP. Effective charter schools will lure proactive parents away from DCPS, accelerating its decline.

You suggest that that would be a bad thing. Perhaps it's a good thing, however. Perhaps all DC children should be educated by charter schools that cater to their needs. Perhaps there's nothing worth saving in DCPS.

DCPS is cooperating with changing all the schools into charters, not because it will be good for all the children. It will be good (or at least OK) for the kids who are doing well already and were doing well all along in schools like Deal, with a high concentration of educated, involved parents live nearby.

It will be bad for the kids with uneducated, less involved parents -- just as it always has been. DCPS management is cooperating with the change to charters to save jobs for its own staff (in the new charter system); not to help children. They gave up on that a couple of years ago when the massive cheating was revealed.

Instead of preserving or building up neighborhood schools, parents who can will be criss-crossing around town and parents who can't or won't will be stuck, as usual, with inferior schools - charter schools.

The Rhee-Henderson reformers were wrong about just needing effective teachers to raise scores, but rather than admit it, they took the option of cooperating with the demise of their own system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gasp!! So exactly how many steps is that previous analogy removed from suggesting that "problem students" - or let's just say of this city's underachievers - should be treated like toxic waste? Maybe we should add scrubbers and filters (maybe we could go back to forcing infertility?), consider burying it with added layers of security (barbed wire maybe? let's make sure we set it up in a part of town that's not too precious, right?), and we'll certainly have to set up some process flow and tight regulations on where the remaining waste can be collected and discharged (maybe labeling and tracing it would be appropriate? the Germans had that sorted out pretty efficiently). Right, the next step would be burning it altogether.

The tragedy is that in fact that is what has been going on for decades, and when reform-minded people and charters come to at least TRY to fix it, they get shot down in a myriad ways by self-righteous yet clueless people like PP and most folks who voted for Gray vs. Fenty. Good job!

Reform continued seamlessly under Gray - just as it would have under Fenty. Rhee's departure changed none of the policies she put in place. It's all about turning the schools into charters.

Some reform continued - anything but "seamlessly." What matters most is not a few well-chosen words, but making the very tough decisions that need to happen. You don't get two leading horses out (Fenty, Rhee) in the middle of the race, and then claim it is all the same.

Right - Reform wasn't even given a chance. Calling it "failure" when it never was allowed to properly get off the ground in the first place is a bit of a stretch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[

Reform continued seamlessly under Gray - just as it would have under Fenty. Rhee's departure changed none of the policies she put in place. It's all about turning the schools into charters.

Some reform continued - anything but "seamlessly." What matters most is not a few well-chosen words, but making the very tough decisions that need to happen. You don't get two leading horses out (Fenty, Rhee) in the middle of the race, and then claim it is all the same.

Right - Reform wasn't even given a chance. Calling it "failure" when it never was allowed to properly get off the ground in the first place is a bit of a stretch.

Don't delude yourselves or try to rewrite history. Reform has been in motion five years with the same management team that started it. Henderson was Rhee's Deputy, remember. Everyone who supported reform was cheering w hen Henderson took the helm and when Gray didn't change anything or interfere in any way. Then the plummeting post-cheating scores came in and it looked like the miracle was a mirage. Then there was all the teacher turn-over (part of the reform plan) due to IMPACT and still no improvement. No improvement with Capital Gains. No improvement even though teachers are being paid more and some are getting bonuses. Paying teachers more was supposed to get them to teach better - though any teacher will tell you that's not how it works. No improvement with half the principals being let go and some of the new hires leaving on their own. Yes, reform has continued, unabated, for five years and it has failed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You're right, PP. Effective charter schools will lure proactive parents away from DCPS, accelerating its decline.

You suggest that that would be a bad thing. Perhaps it's a good thing, however. Perhaps all DC children should be educated by charter schools that cater to their needs. Perhaps there's nothing worth saving in DCPS.

Oh puh-leeze!!
There are thousands of kids placed in charters by parents who are notproactive" in the least. They choose a charter because it's convenient, because their friends or neighbors' kids go there, because it's close to daycare, work, grandma's etc., because they consider it their "neighborhood" school, because they like the idea of language immersion (but have absolutely no intention of supporting it or exposing their kids to the culture), and certainly, if they do come and it's a terrible fit or their kid has massive special needs that are incompatible with the mission of the charter (e.g., the charter is inquiry or expeditionary-based and their kid is incapable of working in groups) they won't do what's best for their child and seek a better fit.
Don't kid yourself that the publics are a dumping ground.

How does this observation contradict my point, PP? If the charters lure away both the proactive parents and the parents who choose charters for convenience, DCPS will still suffer from declining enrollment. That's even better. There's little worth saving at DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Look to New Orleans for an urban district that is now almost entirely made up of Charter schools. Anyone know of research showing improvemet over the system before the hurricane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really - I hadn't noticed that all other schools list the degrees and universities for all of its teaching staff but leave off years of teaching experience for some teachers the way BASIS does.

They don't - hardly any school does. Latin, for example, doesn't list years of teaching experience for ANY of their staff.

http://www.latinpcs.org/pages/Washington_Latin_PCS/About_Us/Faculty_and_Staff

DC Prep Edgewood Middle PCS only shows a similar level of detail as BASIS, many don't list years of experience.

http://www.dcprep.org/Edgewood_Middle_Campus/Team_Bios

And those are the top two charters (by CAS results).

For DCPS, many likewise don't list years of experience or much detail either.

For all anyone knows, based on the various school websites, that same faulty "inexperienced faculty" assumption could be made of virtually any school in the district. PP really didn't display any good evidence, reasoning or factchecking prior to posting this assumption that Basis has an inexperienced faculty, let alone any conclusions drawn beyond that.

BASIS is trying to sell itself into a new market as something special, with superior teachers , so it seems the only reason they wouldn't specifically mention teaching experience for all teachers is because it doesn't help their case.

The evidence provided is lack of complete info about teaching experience. Rather than defend BASIS based on incomplete evidence of their staff's teaching experience, why not ask them to list the teaching experience of all their teachers and see how they react.

PP, you seem believe that teacher quality and teacher experience are highly correlated. Perhaps they are not. Perhaps teacher quality is better correlated with education and enthusiasm. Perhaps the best teachers are young recent graduates who still believe that they can change the world.

In any case, the BASIS mission and vision do not suggest that BASIS teachers are more experienced than teachers at other schools. It specifically refers to "teacher quality," but not "teacher experience."

OUR MISSION AND VISION

OUR MISSION
BASIS DC will provide an academically excellent and rigorous liberal arts college preparatory education available to all middle and high school students of the District of Columbia.

OUR VISION
One of America’s most enduring traditions has been the practice of education as an equalizer. No matter a child’s economic background, geographic location, culture or ethnicity, a quality education along with hard work provides the opportunity to become successful in life. A quality education accessible to all students breaks down the barriers of poverty and the self-fulfilling prophesy of low expectations, and prepares students to compete in a global economy.
This tradition is threatened as long as our schools are not successful. The first step in reversing this trend is to encourage innovation in education. BASIS was founded to raise academic expectations, student achievement, and academic accountability. This model, proven successful in Arizona, demonstrates that academic innovation is possible and that educational excellence can be replicated to fit the diverse needs of students in various geographic locations.
BASIS DC will serve student needs by helping them reach their highest academic potential, and will benefit the DC community by raising academic standards, teaching quality, and expectations for student support at other schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You're right, PP. Effective charter schools will lure proactive parents away from DCPS, accelerating its decline.

You suggest that that would be a bad thing. Perhaps it's a good thing, however. Perhaps all DC children should be educated by charter schools that cater to their needs. Perhaps there's nothing worth saving in DCPS.

Oh puh-leeze!!
There are thousands of kids placed in charters by parents who are notproactive" in the least. They choose a charter because it's convenient, because their friends or neighbors' kids go there, because it's close to daycare, work, grandma's etc., because they consider it their "neighborhood" school, because they like the idea of language immersion (but have absolutely no intention of supporting it or exposing their kids to the culture), and certainly, if they do come and it's a terrible fit or their kid has massive special needs that are incompatible with the mission of the charter (e.g., the charter is inquiry or expeditionary-based and their kid is incapable of working in groups) they won't do what's best for their child and seek a better fit.
Don't kid yourself that the publics are a dumping ground.

How does this observation contradict my point, PP? If the charters lure away both the proactive parents and the parents who choose charters for convenience, DCPS will still suffer from declining enrollment. That's even better. There's little worth saving at DCPS.

It's kind of comical. The DCPS supporters and charter bashers keep coming to these threads trying to trash charters and make their case, yet keep ending up accidentally making the case FOR charters. There's an old saying... "when you find yourself deep in a hole, stop digging."

[Anonymous]

Oh puh-leeze!!
There are thousands of kids placed in charters by parents who are notproactive" in the least. They choose a charter because it's convenient, because their friends or neighbors' kids go there, because it's close to daycare, work, grandma's etc., because they consider it their "neighborhood" school, because they like the idea of language immersion (but have absolutely no intention of supporting it or exposing their kids to the culture), and certainly, if they do come and it's a terrible fit or their kid has massive special needs that are incompatible with the mission of the charter (e.g., the charter is inquiry or expeditionary-based and their kid is incapable of working in groups) they won't do what's best for their child and seek a better fit.
Don't kid yourself that the publics are a dumping ground.



How does this observation contradict my point, PP? If the charters lure away both the proactive parents and the parents who choose charters for convenience, DCPS will still suffer from declining enrollment. That's even better. There's little worth saving at DCPS.

Your point made the assertion that that somehow charters get a better group of kids and parents and my response was that they're the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Oh puh-leeze!!
There are thousands of kids placed in charters by parents who are notproactive" in the least. They choose a charter because it's convenient, because their friends or neighbors' kids go there, because it's close to daycare, work, grandma's etc., because they consider it their "neighborhood" school, because they like the idea of language immersion (but have absolutely no intention of supporting it or exposing their kids to the culture), and certainly, if they do come and it's a terrible fit or their kid has massive special needs that are incompatible with the mission of the charter (e.g., the charter is inquiry or expeditionary-based and their kid is incapable of working in groups) they won't do what's best for their child and seek a better fit.
Don't kid yourself that the publics are a dumping ground.



How does this observation contradict my point, PP? If the charters lure away both the proactive parents and the parents who choose charters for convenience, DCPS will still suffer from declining enrollment. That's even better. There's little worth saving at DCPS.

Your point made the assertion that that somehow charters get a better group of kids and parents and my response was that they're the same.

You should read more carefully, PP. The poster to whom I responded posted the following:

"Now, if charters are successful, thanks to involved parents, what's left of DCPS will be even worse than it is."

In my response, I posted the following:

"You're right, PP. Effective charter schools will lure proactive parents away from DCPS, accelerating its decline."

I then went on to express my belief that an acceleration in the decline of DCPS would be a good thing.

I never claimed that only proactive parents would be lured away from DCPS by good charter schools. Nor did I suggest the charters would get the pick of the litter and that DCPS would be a dumping ground.

On the contrary, I put forth my hope that eventually all DC kids will attend a charter that caters to his/her needs. Clearly, this vision is incompatible with the "DCPS as dumping ground" theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[

Reform continued seamlessly under Gray - just as it would have under Fenty. Rhee's departure changed none of the policies she put in place. It's all about turning the schools into charters.

Some reform continued - anything but "seamlessly." What matters most is not a few well-chosen words, but making the very tough decisions that need to happen. You don't get two leading horses out (Fenty, Rhee) in the middle of the race, and then claim it is all the same.

Right - Reform wasn't even given a chance. Calling it "failure" when it never was allowed to properly get off the ground in the first place is a bit of a stretch.

Don't delude yourselves or try to rewrite history. Reform has been in motion five years with the same management team that started it. Henderson was Rhee's Deputy, remember. Everyone who supported reform was cheering w hen Henderson took the helm and when Gray didn't change anything or interfere in any way. Then the plummeting post-cheating scores came in and it looked like the miracle was a mirage. Then there was all the teacher turn-over (part of the reform plan) due to IMPACT and still no improvement. No improvement with Capital Gains. No improvement even though teachers are being paid more and some are getting bonuses. Paying teachers more was supposed to get them to teach better - though any teacher will tell you that's not how it works. No improvement with half the principals being let go and some of the new hires leaving on their own. Yes, reform has continued, unabated, for five years and it has failed.

You believe whatever you want to believe. But the rest of the world who saw reform get cut off at the knees knows better.