Two Rivers elementary families -- what is your MS plan

[Anonymous]

The area around 2R got expensive so fewer families with little kids moved in. The well-paying jobs nearby are often hybrid so people don't need to live as close. And Ludlow Taylor, Miner, and Payne got a lot more community buyin. I think 2R's future depends somewhat on it and somewhat on how JO Wilson navigates its renovation, the Maury/Miner choice set thing, and maybe Chisholm's transition to all Spanish immersion.

[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:

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)?

Saying you should keep your off-topic and unhinged rants to yourself is not being a mean girl.

[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:

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.

This x 100. So many, many DCPS schools fail kids especially title 1 even with getting more money.

The anti-charter people and PP above is obviously one who is making blanket statements are the people going to title 1 schools who desperately want more higher SES families to buy into their school. It’s the same old, same old.

[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:

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.

This x 100. So many, many DCPS schools fail kids especially title 1 even with getting more money.

The anti-charter people and PP above is obviously one who is making blanket statements are the people going to title 1 schools who desperately want more higher SES families to buy into their school. It’s the same old, same old.

omg!!! drop it already.

[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:

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.

This x 100. So many, many DCPS schools fail kids especially title 1 even with getting more money.

The anti-charter people and PP above is obviously one who is making blanket statements are the people going to title 1 schools who desperately want more higher SES families to buy into their school. It’s the same old, same old.

omg!!! drop it already.

What, can’t accept the truth? It’s so obvious and very tiring.

[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:

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.

This x 100. So many, many DCPS schools fail kids especially title 1 even with getting more money.

The anti-charter people and PP above is obviously one who is making blanket statements are the people going to title 1 schools who desperately want more higher SES families to buy into their school. It’s the same old, same old.

omg!!! drop it already.

What, can’t accept the truth? It’s so obvious and very tiring.

Literally no one on this thread has claimed that DCPS never fails kids. Only that TR is currently failing kids and that it was worth it for them to switch to a DCPS where their kid is not being failed. No one's options are "Two Rivers or one of the worst DCPS in the city." Thanks to the lottery you pretty much always have decent alternatives. I'd take Payne or Seaton over TR any day and would at least consider JOW (post-reno), Langley, Watkins, and Amidon Bowen. Not because these schools are spectacular but just because I think they are probably either better than TR or have a middle school feed I would prefer to TR's.

[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:

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.

This x 100. So many, many DCPS schools fail kids especially title 1 even with getting more money.

The anti-charter people and PP above is obviously one who is making blanket statements are the people going to title 1 schools who desperately want more higher SES families to buy into their school. It’s the same old, same old.

omg!!! drop it already.

What, can’t accept the truth? It’s so obvious and very tiring.

Literally no one on this thread has claimed that DCPS never fails kids. Only that TR is currently failing kids and that it was worth it for them to switch to a DCPS where their kid is not being failed. No one's options are "Two Rivers or one of the worst DCPS in the city." Thanks to the lottery you pretty much always have decent alternatives. I'd take Payne or Seaton over TR any day and would at least consider JOW (post-reno), Langley, Watkins, and Amidon Bowen. Not because these schools are spectacular but just because I think they are probably either better than TR or have a middle school feed I would prefer to TR's.

This. And nearly everyone past PK4 at all of those schools could have a spot at TR if they wanted it. They don't. Those schools are mostly not that great but that's the point-- TR is worse.

[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:

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.

This x 100. So many, many DCPS schools fail kids especially title 1 even with getting more money.

The anti-charter people and PP above is obviously one who is making blanket statements are the people going to title 1 schools who desperately want more higher SES families to buy into their school. It’s the same old, same old.

omg!!! drop it already.

What, can’t accept the truth? It’s so obvious and very tiring.

Literally no one on this thread has claimed that DCPS never fails kids. Only that TR is currently failing kids and that it was worth it for them to switch to a DCPS where their kid is not being failed. No one's options are "Two Rivers or one of the worst DCPS in the city." Thanks to the lottery you pretty much always have decent alternatives. I'd take Payne or Seaton over TR any day and would at least consider JOW (post-reno), Langley, Watkins, and Amidon Bowen. Not because these schools are spectacular but just because I think they are probably either better than TR or have a middle school feed I would prefer to TR's.

This. And nearly everyone past PK4 at all of those schools could have a spot at TR if they wanted it. They don't. Those schools are mostly not that great but that's the point-- TR is worse.

Disagree. You do you but no, some of those schools are not better then TR. And anyone who wants a spot past prek4 at any of the schools above can get one too.

So many parents at title 1 schools on DCUM trying to justify poorly performing DCPS schools. They always come out en mass.
If you were really happy at your school, you wouldn’t be here. And you wouldn’t be the poster who was at TR whose replies basically consists of most of this thread. Can’t seem to move on and needs to constantly justify her choices.

Lastly, no dog in this game. No kids at TR at all.

[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:

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.

This x 100. So many, many DCPS schools fail kids especially title 1 even with getting more money.

The anti-charter people and PP above is obviously one who is making blanket statements are the people going to title 1 schools who desperately want more higher SES families to buy into their school. It’s the same old, same old.

omg!!! drop it already.

What, can’t accept the truth? It’s so obvious and very tiring.

Literally no one on this thread has claimed that DCPS never fails kids. Only that TR is currently failing kids and that it was worth it for them to switch to a DCPS where their kid is not being failed. No one's options are "Two Rivers or one of the worst DCPS in the city." Thanks to the lottery you pretty much always have decent alternatives. I'd take Payne or Seaton over TR any day and would at least consider JOW (post-reno), Langley, Watkins, and Amidon Bowen. Not because these schools are spectacular but just because I think they are probably either better than TR or have a middle school feed I would prefer to TR's.

This. And nearly everyone past PK4 at all of those schools could have a spot at TR if they wanted it. They don't. Those schools are mostly not that great but that's the point-- TR is worse.

Disagree. You do you but no, some of those schools are not better then TR. And anyone who wants a spot past prek4 at any of the schools above can get one too.

So many parents at title 1 schools on DCUM trying to justify poorly performing DCPS schools. They always come out en mass.
If you were really happy at your school, you wouldn’t be here. And you wouldn’t be the poster who was at TR whose replies basically consists of most of this thread. Can’t seem to move on and needs to constantly justify her choices.

Lastly, no dog in this game. No kids at TR at all.

Please reread the last four sentences of your post and then look in the mirror.

You-- you're the problem, it's you.

[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:

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.

This x 100. So many, many DCPS schools fail kids especially title 1 even with getting more money.

The anti-charter people and PP above is obviously one who is making blanket statements are the people going to title 1 schools who desperately want more higher SES families to buy into their school. It’s the same old, same old.

omg!!! drop it already.

What, can’t accept the truth? It’s so obvious and very tiring.

Literally no one on this thread has claimed that DCPS never fails kids. Only that TR is currently failing kids and that it was worth it for them to switch to a DCPS where their kid is not being failed. No one's options are "Two Rivers or one of the worst DCPS in the city." Thanks to the lottery you pretty much always have decent alternatives. I'd take Payne or Seaton over TR any day and would at least consider JOW (post-reno), Langley, Watkins, and Amidon Bowen. Not because these schools are spectacular but just because I think they are probably either better than TR or have a middle school feed I would prefer to TR's.

This. And nearly everyone past PK4 at all of those schools could have a spot at TR if they wanted it. They don't. Those schools are mostly not that great but that's the point-- TR is worse.

Disagree. You do you but no, some of those schools are not better then TR. And anyone who wants a spot past prek4 at any of the schools above can get one too.

So many parents at title 1 schools on DCUM trying to justify poorly performing DCPS schools. They always come out en mass.
If you were really happy at your school, you wouldn’t be here. And you wouldn’t be the poster who was at TR whose replies basically consists of most of this thread. Can’t seem to move on and needs to constantly justify her choices.

Lastly, no dog in this game. No kids at TR at all.

I'm not that poster. I'm a parent at one of the schools listed, I have my eyes wide open to its flaws, and that's the point. TR is not better than, and is not drawing people away from, some pretty low-performing DCPS.

it's sad that TR was once a promising 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:

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.

This x 100. So many, many DCPS schools fail kids especially title 1 even with getting more money.

The anti-charter people and PP above is obviously one who is making blanket statements are the people going to title 1 schools who desperately want more higher SES families to buy into their school. It’s the same old, same old.

omg!!! drop it already.

What, can’t accept the truth? It’s so obvious and very tiring.

Literally no one on this thread has claimed that DCPS never fails kids. Only that TR is currently failing kids and that it was worth it for them to switch to a DCPS where their kid is not being failed. No one's options are "Two Rivers or one of the worst DCPS in the city." Thanks to the lottery you pretty much always have decent alternatives. I'd take Payne or Seaton over TR any day and would at least consider JOW (post-reno), Langley, Watkins, and Amidon Bowen. Not because these schools are spectacular but just because I think they are probably either better than TR or have a middle school feed I would prefer to TR's.

This. And nearly everyone past PK4 at all of those schools could have a spot at TR if they wanted it. They don't. Those schools are mostly not that great but that's the point-- TR is worse.

Disagree. You do you but no, some of those schools are not better then TR. And anyone who wants a spot past prek4 at any of the schools above can get one too.

So many parents at title 1 schools on DCUM trying to justify poorly performing DCPS schools. They always come out en mass.
If you were really happy at your school, you wouldn’t be here. And you wouldn’t be the poster who was at TR whose replies basically consists of most of this thread. Can’t seem to move on and needs to constantly justify her choices.

Lastly, no dog in this game. No kids at TR at all.

So basically you’re on here to fling poop at a concept that triggers you (that wasn’t actually even put forth in this thread).

Get a grip. Whatever is going wrong in your child’s education, just fix it. Move to Fairfax.

[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:

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.

This x 100. So many, many DCPS schools fail kids especially title 1 even with getting more money.

The anti-charter people and PP above is obviously one who is making blanket statements are the people going to title 1 schools who desperately want more higher SES families to buy into their school. It’s the same old, same old.

omg!!! drop it already.

What, can’t accept the truth? It’s so obvious and very tiring.

Literally no one on this thread has claimed that DCPS never fails kids. Only that TR is currently failing kids and that it was worth it for them to switch to a DCPS where their kid is not being failed. No one's options are "Two Rivers or one of the worst DCPS in the city." Thanks to the lottery you pretty much always have decent alternatives. I'd take Payne or Seaton over TR any day and would at least consider JOW (post-reno), Langley, Watkins, and Amidon Bowen. Not because these schools are spectacular but just because I think they are probably either better than TR or have a middle school feed I would prefer to TR's.

This. And nearly everyone past PK4 at all of those schools could have a spot at TR if they wanted it. They don't. Those schools are mostly not that great but that's the point-- TR is worse.

Disagree. You do you but no, some of those schools are not better then TR. And anyone who wants a spot past prek4 at any of the schools above can get one too.

So many parents at title 1 schools on DCUM trying to justify poorly performing DCPS schools. They always come out en mass.
If you were really happy at your school, you wouldn’t be here. And you wouldn’t be the poster who was at TR whose replies basically consists of most of this thread. Can’t seem to move on and needs to constantly justify her choices.

Lastly, no dog in this game. No kids at TR at all.

I'm the PP and I didn't say all of those schools are better than TR. I said I would consider them as alternatives to TR either because I think they are better schools (better curriculum and teaching staff and more functional administration) OR because they have a better middle school feed. I would not stick it out at TR and go through their middle school no matter what and I personally would not want to rely on the lottery to bail me out of that situation if I didn't like my IB option.

This thread is supposed to be about how TR families handle middle school and this is actually how a lot of TR families handle middle school. While many hope to luck out with a spot at Latin or BASIS and some have an IB feed they are happy with others switch to DCPS including some Title 1 schools that you seem to think are very inferior to TR. It turns out they aren't. Some are actually better and others are about equivalent but with better middle school 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:

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.

This x 100. So many, many DCPS schools fail kids especially title 1 even with getting more money.

The anti-charter people and PP above is obviously one who is making blanket statements are the people going to title 1 schools who desperately want more higher SES families to buy into their school. It’s the same old, same old.

omg!!! drop it already.

What, can’t accept the truth? It’s so obvious and very tiring.

Literally no one on this thread has claimed that DCPS never fails kids. Only that TR is currently failing kids and that it was worth it for them to switch to a DCPS where their kid is not being failed. No one's options are "Two Rivers or one of the worst DCPS in the city." Thanks to the lottery you pretty much always have decent alternatives. I'd take Payne or Seaton over TR any day and would at least consider JOW (post-reno), Langley, Watkins, and Amidon Bowen. Not because these schools are spectacular but just because I think they are probably either better than TR or have a middle school feed I would prefer to TR's.

This. And nearly everyone past PK4 at all of those schools could have a spot at TR if they wanted it. They don't. Those schools are mostly not that great but that's the point-- TR is worse.

Disagree. You do you but no, some of those schools are not better then TR. And anyone who wants a spot past prek4 at any of the schools above can get one too.

So many parents at title 1 schools on DCUM trying to justify poorly performing DCPS schools. They always come out en mass.
If you were really happy at your school, you wouldn’t be here. And you wouldn’t be the poster who was at TR whose replies basically consists of most of this thread. Can’t seem to move on and needs to constantly justify her choices.

Lastly, no dog in this game. No kids at TR at all.

I'm the PP and I didn't say all of those schools are better than TR. I said I would consider them as alternatives to TR either because I think they are better schools (better curriculum and teaching staff and more functional administration) OR because they have a better middle school feed. I would not stick it out at TR and go through their middle school no matter what and I personally would not want to rely on the lottery to bail me out of that situation if I didn't like my IB option.

This thread is supposed to be about how TR families handle middle school and this is actually how a lot of TR families handle middle school. While many hope to luck out with a spot at Latin or BASIS and some have an IB feed they are happy with others switch to DCPS including some Title 1 schools that you seem to think are very inferior to TR. It turns out they aren't. Some are actually better and others are about equivalent but with better middle school options.

Oh and also it's "I have no dog in this fight." Or "I have no skin in the game." But not "I have no dog in this game."