What are the odds of them eliminating neighborhood elementary schools in favor of controlled choice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Their test scores suggest that they aren't learning what they need or at a level that gives them basic understanding of the material presented . If they were learning the material on grade level, the schools test scores should be higher, and the school wouldn't be deemed 'failing'. If they are learning (as you suggest), then why are we bothering with all these reforms? Shouldn't things stay the way they are?

No. That is not what the test scores suggest. The test scores only tell us whether students are advanced, proficient, basic, or below basic at grade level according to benchmarks and cut scores that are set by OSSE. This doesn't mean that students don't understand at a basic level.

Students come to DCPS at different levels. Is it logical to think that the schools will be able to get every student at grade level every year? For some students, that would mean accomplishing 2 or 3 years of growth in one year? Is that a reasonable expectation for every student that comes to DCPS?

Students are learning, they just aren't all learning at the same level or at the same rate.

As for your question, I would argue that we DO need to re-examine our reforms, but first we need to re-examine our GOALS, and ask ourselves whether these are reasonable or even desirable goals.

I disagree. If kids at failing schools are learning at an acceptable rate, then what are parents complaining about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I disagree. If kids at failing schools are learning at an acceptable rate, then what are parents complaining about?

Well no one agrees on what an "acceptable rate" is.

I imagine that many of the parents who read this forum want their children to attend schools that have high test scores. Is it possible for all schools in all neighborhoods to have high test scores? I don't think so. Think about it. Half of the population is below average. This seems like a no-win endeavor.

Does that mean that the schools that have low test scores are failing schools where students aren't learning? I don't believe that either.

But a lot of misguided, well-meaning people do believe that.

As a result, we are narrowly focused on raising test scores, which is both futile and a waste of resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I disagree. If kids at failing schools are learning at an acceptable rate, then what are parents complaining about?

Well no one agrees on what an "acceptable rate" is.

I imagine that many of the parents who read this forum want their children to attend schools that have high test scores. Is it possible for all schools in all neighborhoods to have high test scores? I don't think so. Think about it. Half of the population is below average. This seems like a no-win endeavor.

Does that mean that the schools that have low test scores are failing schools where students aren't learning? I don't believe that either.

But a lot of misguided, well-meaning people do believe that.

As a result, we are narrowly focused on raising test scores, which is both futile and a waste of resources.

This doesn't make sense to me. Either test scores matter or they don't. Make up your mind. If they don't matter and kids at failing schools are learning at a rate where they are steadily improving, then test scores don't matter and parents should be happy that their kids are learning. If test scores don't matter then why are parents clamoring to get out of failing schools? If the kids from failing schools are behind, and it's possible to get them up to speed at schools with high test scores, and they are learning at failing schools, then why move them to schools with high test scores? Shouldn't they get to the same point in their failing school if they are learning?

I'm not suggesting that kids at failing schools aren't learning. I suggested that they aren't learning the material necessary to be on grade level, which is what is reflected in the test scores. Raising test scores matter, because it's not just about kids learning, but learning at grade level. If that isn't the problem, and kids are learning (anything at all), then why complain about being stuck in a failing school? Kids there are learning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The WOTP resources are highly educated families and their kids that reap the benefits of these parents.

How could DCPS export that across the park?

That's exactly what they're trying to do with "controlled choice." They're in for the shock of their lives if they think WOTP families will agree to export their kids out of neighborhood schools.

There is no scenario under which WOTP elementary school kids will be bussed out of their neighborhoods. Each of the choice sets is comprised of schools close to home.

A choice set that is without a bus system is ridiculous. A few miles away and not metro accessible? How can that work!

Build your neighborhood schools people.

This! I know families in schools in DC, MD and VA. The one thing the successful schools have in common is that families are involved, parents volunteer time, and if they can, money to make sure the school is a success. One poster on another thread said that he/she shouldn't have to do anything at her school. It should work on it's own. It's precisely that attitude that keeps schools from succeeding. Any success takes work.

This is a lovely idea but it won't work. Involved parents, fundraising, volunteering, etc. great stuff but it will not eliminate the effects of poverty on academic achievement, as much as we would like to believe this fairy tale, it will not turn red into green.

I don't think one can eliminate all the effects of poverty, but the things you mentioned can help make schools places where children can learn. Poor doesn't mean unable to learn.

Yes, and these are worthwhile endeavors. But what makes you think that students at the so-called "failing schools" schools aren't learning?

Their test scores suggest that they aren't learning what they need or at a level that gives them basic understanding of the material presented . If they were learning the material on grade level, the schools test scores should be higher, and the school wouldn't be deemed 'failing'. If they are learning (as you suggest), then why are we bothering with all these reforms? Shouldn't things stay the way they are?

but what we know know, or should, after years of reform, is that having good teachers is not enough to get kids to read. They need a lot of help at home, that they aren't getting. So the schools can do a lot, but some schools will do a lot better than others because of the SES of their parents. There will be exceptions, but the rule will be sustained.

In my mind the only way a school is "failing" is if it isn't addressing the educational needs of the kids in that school.

Alas, the current school administrators are hellbent on getting the scores up so they will look good. They now know the only way to do that is to get more high SES kids into "failing" schools, so they are trying to upset the whole system to achieve their goal, which does nothing to help kids.

[Anonymous]

Ok, let's see if we can agree that children are not widgets. They are individuals with different strengths and weaknesses.

If we accept that, then why would we think that all children of a certain age will be at the same grade level? The reality is, they are not.

However, we can't just retain students year after year. That doesn't make sense nor would it solve the problem.

So the reality is, most classrooms with have students who are actually learning above grade level, some on grade level and others that are below grade level.

If we accept this reality, then I don't think it's logical or reasonable to expect all students to be learning at the same grade level.

Therefore, testing students at the same grade level doesn't really tell us much.

Before all this testing madness started, this is what schools were like. The difference is we didn't publish test scores and we didn't label schools as "failing".

I'm not against standardized testing. I just don't think it's being used appropriately. And I don't think we need to label schools as "failing" or "successful". I do think we need to examine the quality of educational opportunities that are offered in every school and encourage students to work to their personal best.

So I would argue that people should not be complaining about being in boundary for a "failing" school. But that would be a fool's errand. The damage is already done and I don't think we will ever get past this.

[Anonymous]

^^There are schools in MOCO, FFX, and Arlington where that have 100% (or close to it) basic proficiency ratings. It is possible to have all kids in a class at least at grade level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^There are schools in MOCO, FFX, and Arlington where that have 100% (or close to it) basic proficiency ratings. It is possible to have all kids in a class at least at grade level.

MOCO and FFX are pretty affluent areas. They have not achieved this at all schools. These districts have their low performing schools as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^There are schools in MOCO, FFX, and Arlington where that have 100% (or close to it) basic proficiency ratings. It is possible to have all kids in a class at least at grade level.

MOCO and FFX are pretty affluent areas. They have not achieved this at all schools. These districts have their low performing schools as well.

Saying that there are schools in those areas with close to 100% test scores isn't the same as saying ALL schools in those counties have 100% test scores.

Response was to pp who claims it's not possible for there to be schools where all students are learning at grade level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, let's see if we can agree that children are not widgets. They are individuals with different strengths and weaknesses.

If we accept that, then why would we think that all children of a certain age will be at the same grade level? The reality is, they are not.

However, we can't just retain students year after year. That doesn't make sense nor would it solve the problem.

So the reality is, most classrooms with have students who are actually learning above grade level, some on grade level and others that are below grade level.

If we accept this reality, then I don't think it's logical or reasonable to expect all students to be learning at the same grade level.

Therefore, testing students at the same grade level doesn't really tell us much.

Before all this testing madness started, this is what schools were like. The difference is we didn't publish test scores and we didn't label schools as "failing".

I'm not against standardized testing. I just don't think it's being used appropriately. And I don't think we need to label schools as "failing" or "successful". I do think we need to examine the quality of educational opportunities that are offered in every school and encourage students to work to their personal best.

So I would argue that people should not be complaining about being in boundary for a "failing" school. But that would be a fool's errand. The damage is already done and I don't think we will ever get past this.

In other words, you're fine with achievement gaps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^There are schools in MOCO, FFX, and Arlington where that have 100% (or close to it) basic proficiency ratings. It is possible to have all kids in a class at least at grade level.

MOCO and FFX are pretty affluent areas. They have not achieved this at all schools. These districts have their low performing schools as well.

Saying that there are schools in those areas with close to 100% test scores isn't the same as saying ALL schools in those counties have 100% test scores.

Response was to pp who claims it's not possible for there to be schools where all students are learning at grade level.

Name these school

[Anonymous]

Wow. 100%? That's quite remarkable. I suppose it's possible. We could lower the cut scores. And retain any students that are working below grade level. And exclude testing of intellectually delayed students and ELLs.

The question is, in an inner-city school district, with large numbers of low SES students, are these goals reasonable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, let's see if we can agree that children are not widgets. They are individuals with different strengths and weaknesses.

If we accept that, then why would we think that all children of a certain age will be at the same grade level? The reality is, they are not.

However, we can't just retain students year after year. That doesn't make sense nor would it solve the problem.

So the reality is, most classrooms with have students who are actually learning above grade level, some on grade level and others that are below grade level.

If we accept this reality, then I don't think it's logical or reasonable to expect all students to be learning at the same grade level.

Therefore, testing students at the same grade level doesn't really tell us much.

Before all this testing madness started, this is what schools were like. The difference is we didn't publish test scores and we didn't label schools as "failing".

I'm not against standardized testing. I just don't think it's being used appropriately. And I don't think we need to label schools as "failing" or "successful". I do think we need to examine the quality of educational opportunities that are offered in every school and encourage students to work to their personal best.

So I would argue that people should not be complaining about being in boundary for a "failing" school. But that would be a fool's errand. The damage is already done and I don't think we will ever get past this.

In other words, you're fine with achievement gaps.

I'm not fine with achievement gaps. I'm not fine with income gaps. Nor am I fine with children who are homeless. Or children who are hungry, or don't have glasses. I'm not fine with a lot things in this city. I am convinced the achievement gaps would narrow if we addressed the underlying social problems in our city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, let's see if we can agree that children are not widgets. They are individuals with different strengths and weaknesses.

If we accept that, then why would we think that all children of a certain age will be at the same grade level? The reality is, they are not.

However, we can't just retain students year after year. That doesn't make sense nor would it solve the problem.

So the reality is, most classrooms with have students who are actually learning above grade level, some on grade level and others that are below grade level.

If we accept this reality, then I don't think it's logical or reasonable to expect all students to be learning at the same grade level.

Therefore, testing students at the same grade level doesn't really tell us much.

Before all this testing madness started, this is what schools were like. The difference is we didn't publish test scores and we didn't label schools as "failing".

I'm not against standardized testing. I just don't think it's being used appropriately. And I don't think we need to label schools as "failing" or "successful". I do think we need to examine the quality of educational opportunities that are offered in every school and encourage students to work to their personal best.

So I would argue that people should not be complaining about being in boundary for a "failing" school. But that would be a fool's errand. The damage is already done and I don't think we will ever get past this.

In other words, you're fine with achievement gaps.

I'm not fine with achievement gaps. I'm not fine with income gaps. Nor am I fine with children who are homeless. Or children who are hungry, or don't have glasses. I'm not fine with a lot things in this city. I am convinced the achievement gaps would narrow if we addressed the underlying social problems in our city.

I'm not trying to pick on you, but you're back to the 'poor kids can't learn' argument.

[Anonymous]

Washington, DC has the 5th highest rate of inequality among U.S. cities.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2014/02/cities-unequal-berube

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not trying to pick on you, but you're back to the 'poor kids can't learn' argument.

I never said poor kids can't learn. Students at our so-called "failing schools" ARE learning, but not all students learn at the SAME level and rate. Test scores are highly correlated with SES.