BASIS student, have they left the school?

[Anonymous]

Basis' model, as seen in its other schools, is based on high attrition. And it still works, economically. The founders are renowned economists, they have done their analysis. There will be no rush to replace children who leave. It's just one reason I stopped pursuing an enrollment for my child, BUT I'm still supportive of BASIS...There is a need for more accelerated teaching in DC. Perhaps a dozen of the initial class will remain till 12th grade, but looking for 6-8 APs is not much different from what top public school kids in Fairfax and Montgomery county achieve every year.

[Anonymous]

While they do have a high attrition rate, I wouldn't go by attrition rates at 12th grade, as some students will have already met all requirements for graduation before then and will already be in college by then. I believe attrition at BASIS is incidental, it's not at all a founding principle - attrition is a function of how well prepared the incoming students are. The idea is to try and get kids in as early as possible, to ensure their success - kids coming in later on are far more likely to be farther behind. BASIS tries to make up for that, via STARS tutoring, reading and math labs, but there will still be achievement gaps and variability from ES to ES. Regarding AP courses, some BASIS students will actually have MORE than 6-8 APs by the time they graduate.

I think it's very important to have good, robust school options *IN* DC, as opposed to having flight to Fairfax and MoCo. It's worth noting there aren't many other DC schools that currently provide that possibility, DC residents shouldn't HAVE to move to Fairfax or Montgomery County. DC has a ton of great things to offer kids, the Kennedy Center, the Smithsonian museums, Corcoran, National Gallery of Art and so many more things - and in talking to fellow parents who live in Fairfax county and whose kids attend those schools, I find that they tend to get their kids into DC for those exhibits and events far less often than we do, living in DC.

An additional benefit to families staying in DC as opposed to VA or MD, and having the option for a robust DC school that can prepare their kids for college is that for DC residents, DC will match in-state college tuition for something up to $50,000 for universities in the surrounding states, providing a good way to get their undergraduate degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
We're looking at BASIS for DC2 but I've pretty much lost faith at this point, feeling fed up with affirmative action/lottery admissions and aggressively PC parents. I just want a public school where a great education also tends to mean first-rate facilities and admission to a top college. How could Basis possibly afford to wash out half the 7th and 8th graders? Who would replace them if they did? Nobody can tell us. Indian immigrant, guess we'll see you in MoCo....

I've tried to explain the model, as I understand it, several times on these threads.

BASIS is non-selective and yet very selective in a way. They invite all fifth and sixth graders to enroll and offer them two years prepare for the comprehensive exams. (Sixth graders only get one year.) Promotion, i.e., admission, to the seventh and subsequent grades is predicated on passing comprehensive exams in half a dozen subjects. Interestingly, I understand that the BASIS model was originally sixth through 12th, and fifth was added later, presumably because many kids were less prepared than BASIS expected, so an extra "comp-free" year was added.

Passing the comps is no easy task, and predictably, BASIS has a high attrition rate. A while back I took a look at the enrollment numbers at one of the Arizona schools and found the yearly attrition rate to be in the mid to high teens. With a yearly attrition rate of 15%, let's say, a BASIS school would keep about 40% of its incoming fifth graders after six years. (BASIS students have the option of graduating after the 11th grade, and I'm assuming that any student who makes it to the 11th grade would graduate within two years, if not one.)

Suppose BASIS wants to graduate about, say, 60 kids in each incoming class after seven or eight years (11th or 12th) using a curriculum that results in a 15% yearly attrition rate. Should they admit 60 kids into the fifth grade and admit more kids into the class each year to replace the 9 or so who can be expected to leave? Of course not. Since the curriculum is accelerated, the material gets harder from year to year, as do the comps. The attrition rate among the kids who are admitted in later years will be very high. (This might explain the reportedly high attrition rates among this year's seventh and eighth graders.)

Instead, they should admit about 150 kids into the fifth grade and not replace any of the departing kids, except perhaps for adding a small number of sixth graders whose parents failed to or were unable to make the switch after fourth grade.

In many ways, the non-selective BASIS model is fairer than selective admissions. Rather than admit only the 60 kids with the highest graduation potential from a pool of 150 applicants, BASIS admits them all and allows the 60 who graduate to select themselves. In a selective model, the applicant with the 61st highest graduation potential is nearly as qualified as the applicant with the 60th, but the cut has to be made somewhere.

Unfortunately, the non-selective BASIS model becomes less fair in the face of a lottery for admission to the fifth grade. In that case, kids with the highest graduation potential might lose in the lottery. Hopefully, BASIS will have the space to accommodate all interested fifth graders going forward, as they did last year, obviating the need for a lottery. If not, they should probably continue to admit sixth graders to replace the outgoing fifth graders who (or whose families) underestimated the amount of preparation and hard work required to succeed at BASIS.

As for the economics, the cost of running the school is amortized over enrollment in all grades, not just the upper grades. By admitting 150 fifth graders each year, a BASIS school with a 15% yearly attrition rate would reach a total enrollment of 680 kids in fifth through 11th after six years, plus perhaps one or two dozen lingering 12th graders. In other words, the fifth graders pay 22% of the cost of running the school, rather than the 14% they would pay if they were only 1/7 of the total enrollment. (On the other hand, the fifth graders would probably cost the school more than the 22% of the funding they contribute, as they would probably need the most remedial services.)

So, to answer your question more directly, PP, BASIS will replace this year's departing seventh and eight graders with fifth graders next year.

[Anonymous]

Basis' model, as seen in its other schools, is based on high attrition. And it still works, economically. The founders are renowned economists, they have done their analysis. There will be no rush to replace children who leave. It's just one reason I stopped pursuing an enrollment for my child, BUT I'm still supportive of BASIS...There is a need for more accelerated teaching in DC. Perhaps a dozen of the initial class will remain till 12th grade, but looking for 6-8 APs is not much different from what top public school kids in Fairfax and Montgomery county achieve every year.

You've articulated one of the many reasons parents are leery of BASIS. It's run by economists, not educators. Their agenda is clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You've articulated one of the many reasons parents are leery of BASIS. It's run by economists, not educators. Their agenda is clear.

The Blocks were professors of economics who taught in universities. They were quite dismayed when their daughter was attending school in the US in that their was very little content that was covered in comparison to the content that Olga had in European schools. Hence, Basis was born.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Basis' model, as seen in its other schools, is based on high attrition. And it still works, economically. The founders are renowned economists, they have done their analysis. There will be no rush to replace children who leave. It's just one reason I stopped pursuing an enrollment for my child, BUT I'm still supportive of BASIS...There is a need for more accelerated teaching in DC. Perhaps a dozen of the initial class will remain till 12th grade, but looking for 6-8 APs is not much different from what top public school kids in Fairfax and Montgomery county achieve every year.

You've articulated one of the many reasons parents are leery of BASIS. It's run by economists, not educators. Their agenda is clear.

And parochial schools were started by priests, I guess they also had a clear agenda....There are still going to be teachers in the classrooms, or people who will learn to teach, as in Teach for America...
I believe that schools started by concerned parents have an ability to maneuver staffing and curriculum more nimbly than schools grounded in a large organization with 6 committees to approve playground equipment and hiring.

[Anonymous]

And most public schools are run by bureaucrats, political hacks and cronies. Your point is what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Basis' model, as seen in its other schools, is based on high attrition. And it still works, economically. The founders are renowned economists, they have done their analysis. There will be no rush to replace children who leave. It's just one reason I stopped pursuing an enrollment for my child, BUT I'm still supportive of BASIS...There is a need for more accelerated teaching in DC. Perhaps a dozen of the initial class will remain till 12th grade, but looking for 6-8 APs is not much different from what top public school kids in Fairfax and Montgomery county achieve every year.

You've articulated one of the many reasons parents are leery of BASIS. It's run by economists, not educators. Their agenda is clear.

And parochial schools were started by priests, I guess they also had a clear agenda....There are still going to be teachers in the classrooms, or people who will learn to teach, as in Teach for America...
I believe that schools started by concerned parents have an ability to maneuver staffing and curriculum more nimbly than schools grounded in a large organization with 6 committees to approve playground equipment and hiring.[/quote

A professor of economics is an educator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Basis' model, as seen in its other schools, is based on high attrition. And it still works, economically. The founders are renowned economists, they have done their analysis. There will be no rush to replace children who leave. It's just one reason I stopped pursuing an enrollment for my child, BUT I'm still supportive of BASIS...There is a need for more accelerated teaching in DC. Perhaps a dozen of the initial class will remain till 12th grade, but looking for 6-8 APs is not much different from what top public school kids in Fairfax and Montgomery county achieve every year.


You've articulated one of the many reasons parents are leery of BASIS. It's run by economists, not educators. Their agenda is clear.
And parochial schools were started by priests, I guess they also had a clear agenda....There are still going to be teachers in the classrooms, or people who will learn to teach, as in Teach for America...
I believe that schools started by concerned parents have an ability to maneuver staffing and curriculum more nimbly than schools grounded in a large organization with 6 committees to approve playground equipment and hiring.

A professor of economics is an educator.

About economics. Doesn't mean they know a thing about curriculum, pedagogy, or student achievement.

BASIS is here because DC is the easiest place to start a charter. Read their press; they don't hide this. DC is a step in their expansion plan. Good on them. But assuming that their expansion plans meets the actual needs of DC students before they have a track record here is unwise.

An interesting conversation that you allude to is the idea that parents are somehow qualified to start schools. On these boards, people denigrate the teachers in their schools as being unqualified to teach, that they aren't experts in differentiated instruction, or ability grouping, or whatever...but seem to think that parents, who are not experts in any of the above topics, or any in education, are qualified to know enough about what children need to be allowed to start a school.

[Anonymous]

I believe that parents are absolutely qualified to create schools. The charter board will determine if the school meets the criteria for public funding, and if the education offered is in keeping with minimum standards ie continues to operate. Charters DO close after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Basis' model, as seen in its other schools, is based on high attrition. And it still works, economically. The founders are renowned economists, they have done their analysis. There will be no rush to replace children who leave. It's just one reason I stopped pursuing an enrollment for my child, BUT I'm still supportive of BASIS...There is a need for more accelerated teaching in DC. Perhaps a dozen of the initial class will remain till 12th grade, but looking for 6-8 APs is not much different from what top public school kids in Fairfax and Montgomery county achieve every year.


You've articulated one of the many reasons parents are leery of BASIS. It's run by economists, not educators. Their agenda is clear.
And parochial schools were started by priests, I guess they also had a clear agenda....There are still going to be teachers in the classrooms, or people who will learn to teach, as in Teach for America...
I believe that schools started by concerned parents have an ability to maneuver staffing and curriculum more nimbly than schools grounded in a large organization with 6 committees to approve playground equipment and hiring.

A professor of economics is an educator.

About economics. Doesn't mean they know a thing about curriculum, pedagogy, or student achievement.

BASIS is here because DC is the easiest place to start a charter. Read their press; they don't hide this. DC is a step in their expansion plan. Good on them. But assuming that their expansion plans meets the actual needs of DC students before they have a track record here is unwise.

An interesting conversation that you allude to is the idea that parents are somehow qualified to start schools. On these boards, people denigrate the teachers in their schools as being unqualified to teach, that they aren't experts in differentiated instruction, or ability grouping, or whatever...but seem to think that parents, who are not experts in any of the above topics, or any in education, are qualified to know enough about what children need to be allowed to start a school.

14:04 - It's not "parents" doing the teaching and administration at BASIS - it's degreed professionals with experience in teaching, hired specifically for that purpose. Parents don't necessarily have to have detailed expertise in running a school - but most parents know enough to see when something isn't working for their child. But what's your alternative? Who are the "experts" you'd prefer to have in the mix? Given the current status and results seen in DCPS schools, clearly they are not these experts in pedagogy, curriculum and student achievement that you'd like to tout. So what expert schooling paradigm do you represent?

And no, DC isn't necessarily "the easiest", but it's certainly a relatively high-profile city for making an impact. Many states are even more parochial in that they don't even allow charters.

[Anonymous]

"I believe that parents are absolutely qualified to create schools. The charter board will determine if the school meets the criteria for public funding, and if the education offered is in keeping with minimum standards ie continues to operate. Charters DO close after all."

But what makes them qualified? This is a serious question. Just because someone went to school doesn't make them an expert on education, so what makes these parents, any parents qualified to identify what makes a good school?

Or is this the wrong question? What is the right question?

(and for the PP who doubts, yes, DC is absolutely one of the easiest places to start a charter. Do yourself some research. As for your parochial remark, I'm not sure what your point is...other states are more difficult to start a charter in? Yeah, that's my point.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"I believe that parents are absolutely qualified to create schools. The charter board will determine if the school meets the criteria for public funding, and if the education offered is in keeping with minimum standards ie continues to operate. Charters DO close after all."

But what makes them qualified? This is a serious question. Just because someone went to school doesn't make them an expert on education, so what makes these parents, any parents qualified to identify what makes a good school?

Or is this the wrong question? What is the right question?

(and for the PP who doubts, yes, DC is absolutely one of the easiest places to start a charter. Do yourself some research. As for your parochial remark, I'm not sure what your point is...other states are more difficult to start a charter in? Yeah, that's my point.)

What is this "qualified to identify what makes a good school" BS? What makes a good school is functional proficiency. Kids who can read for content, kids who can write and present well, with coherent structure and proper grammar and spelling, kids who have learned and can apply principles such as algebra and geometry, kids who know who our Presidents were and what our history is, kids who know the continents and countries, kids who understand a bit about civics, ethics, world cultures and so on. DCPS churns out thousands of kids each year who don't have any of that - kids who can't even manage to read and write well enough to fill out a job application for themselves. This is not rocket science. Don't dare sit there and presume to pontificate down upon us from on high in your imaginary ivory tower about pedagogic theory and an educator's qualifications when the fact of it is that you and the rest of the public education system you represent is getting it all so very wrong at even the most fundamental level.

[Anonymous]

Agreed. The "educators" at DCPS have made a mash-up of the while.thing for a very, very long time. Enough is Enough. Let someone else try. It can't be much worse.

[Anonymous]

^^ Parents don't have to be experts on pedagogy or get into the weeds. They just have to know and understand what outcomes they expect, and how to get the right people together to make it happen.

Some people build their own "dream homes". They typically base it on existing designs and models, tweak and tune, and then have contractors put it all together for them. They typically don't have to know the intricacies of wiring, or be artists at sheetrocking and tiling - instead more often they provide the design, and an architect helps them turn their design into concrete plans and specifications, and the contractors then build it to meet the plan and specification. Even the more handy folks who do know a bit about homebuilding typically bring in specialists to handle aspects of the work. Wouldn't want to dig out that basement and foundation by hand, for example - when it would be much more effective to bring someone in with an excavator.

So given that analogy, why WOULD a parent have to be an expert on pedagogy or have any other special qualifications beyond just being an involved and concerned parent? Clearly, they don't have to. We aren't living in a vacuum. The resources exist.