BASIS DC will seek to expand to include K to 4th grade

[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:I wish they would open up a second middle/high school instead because there are plenty of good elementary schools in DC already and a shortage of good middle and high school options. Also, the BASIS HOS mentioned the second school could potentially share outdoor space and a gym with the current school which would be amazing regardless but more ideal with students similarly aged.

Another thought: With a BASIS elementary school feeding into the middle/high school eventually, it seems eventually less Capitol Hill families would be at BASIS because they have great convenient elementary options already…

This. Hill families, your middle school seats are threatened!

This is a very real issue. Enrollment data shows us that Brent, Maurey and Watkins send a TON of kids to BASIS. There won't be 135 5th grade seats to fill of they are only backfilling from 4th grade BASIS kids. Will those Hill families choose BASIS in K instead of Brent, etc.? If BASIS had a good or great physical space for ES, does that change the answer? If they don't choose BASIS, what does the demographic of BASIS look like without all those white UMC families? Are there enough kids who can hack it at BASIS to fill those spots if the Hill school populations aren't filling them? Could this help the Hill MS to improve without the brain drain? Would people think twice about living on the Hill without the BASIS school safety valve?

I am asking these questions, but I would note that BASIS is not responsible for or to the CH schools. The CH families may think BASIS is "theirs" but it isn't.

This, exactly. Is BASIS really that great, or is it a meh school whose "success" is the result of demographics and of their social promotion policy (and don't forget, shirking on taking kids after 5th like other schools do).

I think this is a very interesting question. My guess is that most Brent/Maury/LT families will not move their kids to BASIS for K just to lock in 5th. They'll already have been at their local ES for 1-2 years and they'll by-and-large have had good experiences, because those schools are good. The kind of families who stick out the Hill are the kind of families who don't prioritize locking in a middle school (or they'd move to NW/Deal/Hardy). BASIS is close, but not close enough to be neighborhood-y for K-4; kids are very different by 5th. Also UMC Hill parents are by and large super involved in the Hill ESes and I just can't see BASIS allowing that, which I think would frustrate those parents. (I think Watkins could cut a bit differently. Families already have to move from Peabody to Watkins in 1st and as UMC families are increasingly reluctant to do that, I think those families might cut out for BASIS in K instead in higher numbers.)

If Brent/Maury/LT shared a middle school, I actually think this could have a positive effect on the local MS almost immediately... since they don't, it'll be a small trickle. SH could be the most affected the most immediately, since LT & Watkins both feed there and not all Watkins kids will bail, even if in larger numbers. I wonder what percentage of slots they'll hold for MS? At first it's going to be all sibling preference and newbies will be shut out entirely unless that percentage is huge. Middle school entry will get even crazier if this is approved.

I'm PP to whom you responded. I think I agree with much of what what you project. One of the things I find amusing is the reflexive responses on DCUM from people who immediately question whether BASIS is appropriate for ES. They have like 40 other schools that already offer K+.

Everyone knows BASIS operates lots of elementary schools. But this country is filled with crappy schools. Existing doesn't mean it's actually good.

https://enrollbasis.com/about-basis-charter-schools/awards-and-rankings/

Objective data says they thrive.

Oh please, let's definitely compare private and selective admissions schools as if they're pure lottery in a high-needs area.

What are you talking about? All BASIS schools are free and lottery. The rankings I pointed to are for BASIS schools. Stop typing; you look more foolish evert time you "contribute".

You are 100% wrong and look really foolish because of your tone in this post. Even in the DMV, Basis McLean is a private school. Basis Brooklyn is a private school. In almost all BASIS locations, students have to pass a placement test (post-lottery) to be placed in a grade and, if a student doesn't pass, their admission is contingent on being willing to repeat the prior grade. You have ABSOLUTELY no idea what you're talking about.

You have conflated the BASIS charter schools with the private for profit BASIS Independent Schools (McLean). The schools on the list I linked to are the charter schools. THEY ARE NOT PRIVATE. Which is why when you misunderstand the difference and accuse someone (incorrectly) of referencing private schools, you look like a fool.

BASIS charter schools take all comers. They absolutely to a test to place kids where they belong. They do not refuse kids based on those results, merely place them appropriately. That is not an "admissions test".

Which BASIS schools have a high proportion of at-risk kids?

Why does BASIS DC perform so much worse than other BASIS schools?

That is a fair question, because it does. Ironically, one of the reasons is because it does not have an ES. All of the other campuses start in ES. I think part of the issue is also what you see here on DCUM. We spend a lot of time in DC on performative nonsense and faux equity that the environment isn't focused on academic excellence as much as other garbage. Look at this forum as an example. Anytime anyone points to BASIS's success people chime in to try and focus on the kids is isn't educating. In DC, people score points not for building things or succeeding, but for tearing them down. I think that makes it much harder for schools to succeed.

You are wrong. You obviously don't have a kid at BASIS.

The BASIS network tracks how all the schools compare, and BASIS DC is in the top group.

No, it isn't. Alex is open about how BASIS DC was last or almost last in most metrics for years. They have improved in recent years but DC is still near the bottom. I know this because Alex said it as recently the working session held a few Fridays ago to talk about the next strategic plan. Did you not attend?

I am very happy with BASIS. My kids thrive there. That doesn't prevent me from being objective. BASIS DC is objectively near the bottom the BASIS charter school rankings and metrics.

Did Alex say the reasons for the performance disparity?

I really question why BASIS should be allowed to expand here of their school here can't do as well as their other schools. Are they not sending their best staff?

In a thread filled with dumb takes, this one takes the cake! The standard is not whether the DC version is better than others. The D version is heads and tails above other DC options.

[Anonymous]

having an individual kid repeat a grade isn’t going to improve that kid’s academic or life outcomes at all,

Do you have a citation for this? A long time ago, my sibling finished first grade unable to read. My family moved that summer and enrolled my sibling in first grade again at a different school in a different state. That time, it sunk in and my sibling learned to read well.

My kid attended a public Gifted & Talented program. One kid had a horrible year--parents divorced and mom then killed in a car crash. Father refused to take the kid in because he had a girlfriend who didn't want the kid. He ended up being taken in by relatives. The school held him back. None of the kids thought he was dumb; they understood his mommy had died, he had to live with people he didn't know well, and so he hadn't paid much attention in school.

I attended Catholic schools. There were kids, usually boys, who were held back. In one case by the time 8th grade graduation rolled around, one of them was near the top of the class. Yes, sometimes parents would send these kids to public school--where they usually had to repeat a grade anyway, but their classmates didn't know that.

Now, you may be right that holding kids back a year doesn't work in the aggregate. Yes, you may be able to establish that a higher percentage of them don't finish high school vs. students who weren't held back. But what's the control group of students who were not helf back? Is it all kids who weren't held back? If so, that's irrelevant. The control group for comparison should be students who didn't meet the standards for the grade but were socially promoted anyway. Do those kids catch up? If so, you're right that it's better to socially promote kids. But DC schools have lots of kids who are already 3 or more grades behind by the time they take 5th grade PARRC test---so I have my doubts that socially promoting kids enables them to catch up with their peers.

Lots of people who are functionally illiterate graduate from high school . They don't magically go on to live productive lives. There are public high schools in DC at which less than 5 per cent of students are on grade level for reading and math. Do you think employers are impressed by diplomas from those schools? Do you think that people with high school diplomas who read at a fifth grade level and do math at third grade level become successful employees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

having an individual kid repeat a grade isn’t going to improve that kid’s academic or life outcomes at all,

Do you have a citation for this? A long time ago, my sibling finished first grade unable to read. My family moved that summer and enrolled my sibling in first grade again at a different school in a different state. That time, it sunk in and my sibling learned to read well.

My kid attended a public Gifted & Talented program. One kid had a horrible year--parents divorced and mom then killed in a car crash. Father refused to take the kid in because he had a girlfriend who didn't want the kid. He ended up being taken in by relatives. The school held him back. None of the kids thought he was dumb; they understood his mommy had died, he had to live with people he didn't know well, and so he hadn't paid much attention in school.

I attended Catholic schools. There were kids, usually boys, who were held back. In one case by the time 8th grade graduation rolled around, one of them was near the top of the class. Yes, sometimes parents would send these kids to public school--where they usually had to repeat a grade anyway, but their classmates didn't know that.

Now, you may be right that holding kids back a year doesn't work in the aggregate. Yes, you may be able to establish that a higher percentage of them don't finish high school vs. students who weren't held back. But what's the control group of students who were not helf back? Is it all kids who weren't held back? If so, that's irrelevant. The control group for comparison should be students who didn't meet the standards for the grade but were socially promoted anyway. Do those kids catch up? If so, you're right that it's better to socially promote kids. But DC schools have lots of kids who are already 3 or more grades behind by the time they take 5th grade PARRC test---so I have my doubts that socially promoting kids enables them to catch up with their peers.

Lots of people who are functionally illiterate graduate from high school . They don't magically go on to live productive lives. There are public high schools in DC at which less than 5 per cent of students are on grade level for reading and math. Do you think employers are impressed by diplomas from those schools? Do you think that people with high school diplomas who read at a fifth grade level and do math at third grade level become successful employees?

+1 The kids who "graduate" with a 4th grade education don't get jobs. Unless you count carjacking and other crime. When they are arrested the same people who are in favor of social promotion put their sad faces on and lament how society has failed those poor kids. At no point do they look in the mirror and consider for one moment whether foisting those "graduates" on the world without basic skills contributed to that child's station in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

Because we're talking about an elementary school where the developmental and physical gaps can be really big. If a kid is held back more than once, that's a lot. If it were your kid, would you think this is a good plan? Or would you think the school is unwilling to meet their needs in a manner you consider appropriate? It's fine to say "BASIS isn't to everyone's taste" but to offer parents a choice of leaving or accepting an inappropriate class year placement is effectively pushing them out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

Let me put it this way: If your kid were struggling academically, would you think that being surrounded by much-younger children would be helpful? If someone can't read in 2nd grade, is towering over the Kindergarten class the answer? I don't think being around a bunch of younger kids all day is going to solve anything. They need push-in IEP support in an age-appropriate environment.

Also, kids don't develop at the same rate in all subjects. If a kid is really really struggling in math, but on grade level in reading and other subjects, should they be held back? Would it benefit them to be totally bored in other subjects, repeating the same content, doing the same math they unsuccessfully did before. That makes no sense. The delay isn't due to a lack of repitition. It's due to special needs that need to be diagnosed and addressed with an IEP. The I in IEP stands for "Individual". A blanket policy of retention is not appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

BASIS DC is notorious for not providing IDEA-required supports for kids who could be successful there. I’d like to see them implement these improvements they mentioned before they get a chance to expand and then, oops! forget about those kids. Again.

And they should be required to fill open seats.

-1

Way too hard to catch kids up in the upper grades when DCPS is doing the exact opposite of BASIS: watering down the curriculum, solely focusing on closing the achievement gap, refusing to offer true honors classes, etc.

Way too easy to dismiss kids who could do the work. What’s your answer for kids coming in from other school districts? No chance at BASIS for you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

Because we're talking about an elementary school where the developmental and physical gaps can be really big. If a kid is held back more than once, that's a lot. If it were your kid, would you think this is a good plan? Or would you think the school is unwilling to meet their needs in a manner you consider appropriate? It's fine to say "BASIS isn't to everyone's taste" but to offer parents a choice of leaving or accepting an inappropriate class year placement is effectively pushing them out

Fine, that’s the parent’s choice to leave because the school is a poor fit. The other choice would be to request a private placement - many charters do this. But you just seem to be in denial about the fact that a) Basis offers a rigorous curriculum and b) not all kids will be able to handle it. For some kids, no amount of services would help. So what you really do seem to be saying is that they are entitled to a separate curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

Let me put it this way: If your kid were struggling academically, would you think that being surrounded by much-younger children would be helpful? If someone can't read in 2nd grade, is towering over the Kindergarten class the answer? I don't think being around a bunch of younger kids all day is going to solve anything. They need push-in IEP support in an age-appropriate environment.

Also, kids don't develop at the same rate in all subjects. If a kid is really really struggling in math, but on grade level in reading and other subjects, should they be held back? Would it benefit them to be totally bored in other subjects, repeating the same content, doing the same math they unsuccessfully did before. That makes no sense. The delay isn't due to a lack of repitition. It's due to special needs that need to be diagnosed and addressed with an IEP. The I in IEP stands for "Individual". A blanket policy of retention is not appropriate.

If your kid is really struggling, why would you enroll them in a highly challenging academicly focused school with a lot of homework and high-stakes tests?

Clearly what you object to is the Basis model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

Because we're talking about an elementary school where the developmental and physical gaps can be really big. If a kid is held back more than once, that's a lot. If it were your kid, would you think this is a good plan? Or would you think the school is unwilling to meet their needs in a manner you consider appropriate? It's fine to say "BASIS isn't to everyone's taste" but to offer parents a choice of leaving or accepting an inappropriate class year placement is effectively pushing them out

Fine, that’s the parent’s choice to leave because the school is a poor fit. The other choice would be to request a private placement - many charters do this. But you just seem to be in denial about the fact that a) Basis offers a rigorous curriculum and b) not all kids will be able to handle it. For some kids, no amount of services would help. So what you really do seem to be saying is that they are entitled to a separate curriculum.

No, it's not that at all. It's that BASIS is opting for a stigmatizing and developmentally inappropriate retention policy, rather than offering the kinds of supports that plenty of well-performing schools do, and they're doing it because they know it will cause people to "choose" to leave. If you believe what you're saying, I have a bridge to sell you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like a great idea. I wish this had been around when my own Black children were in elementary school.

What part of this do you not understand? DCUM believes that the only way to ensure equity is to make it so we focus on a small number of at risk kids. Sure, the result is your hard working black kid and her friends won't have access to quality or rigor, but you can't do performative equity if you care about actually educating black kids.

So true. The Black families that care with resources get out of DCPS. The Black families that care without resources are hung out to dry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

Let me put it this way: If your kid were struggling academically, would you think that being surrounded by much-younger children would be helpful? If someone can't read in 2nd grade, is towering over the Kindergarten class the answer? I don't think being around a bunch of younger kids all day is going to solve anything. They need push-in IEP support in an age-appropriate environment.

Also, kids don't develop at the same rate in all subjects. If a kid is really really struggling in math, but on grade level in reading and other subjects, should they be held back? Would it benefit them to be totally bored in other subjects, repeating the same content, doing the same math they unsuccessfully did before. That makes no sense. The delay isn't due to a lack of repitition. It's due to special needs that need to be diagnosed and addressed with an IEP. The I in IEP stands for "Individual". A blanket policy of retention is not appropriate.

If your kid is really struggling, why would you enroll them in a highly challenging academicly focused school with a lot of homework and high-stakes tests?

Clearly what you object to is the Basis model.

Because if BASIS starts an elementary school, people will have to enroll starting in K, and they won't know at that time whether it will be a good fit.

People enroll in BASIS because it's the best option available to them, even if it isn't a great fit. Is that so hard to understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like a great idea. I wish this had been around when my own Black children were in elementary school.

What part of this do you not understand? DCUM believes that the only way to ensure equity is to make it so we focus on a small number of at risk kids. Sure, the result is your hard working black kid and her friends won't have access to quality or rigor, but you can't do performative equity if you care about actually educating black kids.

So true. The Black families that care with resources get out of DCPS. The Black families that care without resources are hung out to dry.

BASIS is only 20% Black students, why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

Because we're talking about an elementary school where the developmental and physical gaps can be really big. If a kid is held back more than once, that's a lot. If it were your kid, would you think this is a good plan? Or would you think the school is unwilling to meet their needs in a manner you consider appropriate? It's fine to say "BASIS isn't to everyone's taste" but to offer parents a choice of leaving or accepting an inappropriate class year placement is effectively pushing them out

Fine, that’s the parent’s choice to leave because the school is a poor fit. The other choice would be to request a private placement - many charters do this. But you just seem to be in denial about the fact that a) Basis offers a rigorous curriculum and b) not all kids will be able to handle it. For some kids, no amount of services would help. So what you really do seem to be saying is that they are entitled to a separate curriculum.

No, it's not that at all. It's that BASIS is opting for a stigmatizing and developmentally inappropriate retention policy, rather than offering the kinds of supports that plenty of well-performing schools do, and they're doing it because they know it will cause people to "choose" to leave. If you believe what you're saying, I have a bridge to sell you.

I’ll agree with the PP who said the actually stigmatizing and developmentally inappropriate thing is the DCPS schools with 75%-99% of kids failing PARCC.

I swear, this country is absolutely in a suicide pact with itself in coming up with ways to sabotage actual progress