Wilson honors for all - how has it worked?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To 1:43 - I think your correct point is too subtle for DCUM.

They can’t imagine how their kid’s education can be good if others aren’t excluded.

How does teaching to each child's ability exclude someone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To 1:43 - I think your correct point is too subtle for DCUM.

They can’t imagine how their kid’s education can be good if others aren’t excluded.

How does teaching to each child's ability exclude someone?

Because having low expectations for a child creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To 1:43 - I think your correct point is too subtle for DCUM.

They can’t imagine how their kid’s education can be good if others aren’t excluded.

How does teaching to each child's ability exclude someone?

Because having low expectations for a child creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

When my child was in elementary school and was directed to read “just right “ books (meaning at a level that pushed but did not frustrate her) was the fact that one student has a lower “just right” level than another considered low expectations? It was not, it was considered the level that would help them learn and progress, regardless of whether it was below at or above grade level. Why is it reasonable to push everyone to learn at the same level when clearly some need more challenge and some will succeed better with more support?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To 1:43 - I think your correct point is too subtle for DCUM.

They can’t imagine how their kid’s education can be good if others aren’t excluded.

How does teaching to each child's ability exclude someone?

Because having low expectations for a child creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Your mixing up problems. You can teach kids at whatever their current level and still have big expectations for all of them.

Puttin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You misrepresent the research. And your link is to a paper from 1987, which is now over thirty years old. An honest assessment of the research is that it shows that non-tracked programs hurt the lowest and highest performing students. This is not a surprise to anyone who has attended a school or taught at one.

Actually, I don't. And as I noted in my later post, I'm not convinced that honors for all is a good approach. What I did say, and the research shows, and you haven't responded to, is that tracking EVERY TIME IT'S BEEN STUDIED has been shown to mis-assign students (putting lower ability students in higher track classes and vice versa) in ways that mean wealthy, whiter kids end up higher tier classes much more often than their academic attainment alone would dictate. You didn't respond to my actual point at all. And I'm in no way misrepresenting the research, you're just responding to points that I didn't make with long excerpts from a tangentially related study.

Actually, you do. You stated "1. The research shows that tiered classes are largely ineffective and [sic] increasing student learning." That is what I responded to. If what you said were true, the Chicago study would have found that moving from tiered to non-tiered classes had no effort or a positive effect on student performance. Instead it found the opposite, as I described. And that is why it is directly related to the discussion, not "tangentially related".

And the Chicago study is consistent with the recent literature on tracking. Parents and students should look at the report by the Brookings Institution titled "Tracking and Advanced Placement" (2016) - https://www.brookings.edu/research/tracking-and-advanced-placement/.

The report summarizes the recent literature on tracking which in all but one case finds that tracking benefits low and high performing students, including black and hispanic students. Below I include some examples pulled directly from the paper where the italics are direct quotes.

Harvard University Randomized Tracking Study in Kenya (2005)

Experiments in which students are randomly assigned to tracked and untracked settings are rare. In 2005, an experiment in Kenya could be conducted because schools were granted extra funds to hire first grade teachers.[5] More than a hundred schools (121) had only one first grade teacher, and the new money allowed the addition of a second teacher. The schools were randomly assigned to either a tracked or untracked condition. In the tracked schools, one of the classes was made up of higher achievers, the other of lower achievers. Students were placed in either the higher- or lower-achieving class based on whether they scored above or below the median for all students. Students in the untracked schools were assigned to the two classes randomly, creating classes heterogeneous in ability.

The experiment ran for 18 months. Both high- and low-achievers in the tracked schools gained more on achievement tests compared to students in the untracked schools. The benefit for students in higher-achieving classes was 0.19 standard deviations and for those in the lower-achieving classes,0.16 standard deviations.

Northwestern University and California Davis Study (2000)

David N. Figlio and Marianne E. Page (2000) also used an instrumental variable strategy to isolate the effects of tracking. They found that wealthier families consider whether a school tracks when making enrollment decisions. After controlling for those parental decisions, Figlio and Page found that disadvantaged students benefitted from tracking, contradicting the notion that abolishing tracking promotes equity. As they put it, “…tracking programs are associated with test score gains for students in the bottom third of the initial test score distribution. We conclude that the move to end tracking may harm the very students it is intended to help.”

California Berkeley and Santa Cruz Study (2014)

David Card and Laura Giuliano (2014) studied the effects of gifted classes in a large Eastern school district. The district had mandated that schools with even a single gifted student (most of whom were identified by IQ tests) must provide separate gifted classes in fourth and fifth grades, with open seats in these classes filled by high achievers—the school’s highest performers on the annual state assessment. The policy dramatically increased the proportion of disadvantaged students in the gifted classes to about 40 percent districtwide. The researchers found significant positive effects for high achievers in the program, in particular for low-income black and Hispanic students. Card and Giuliano concluded, “Our findings suggest that a comprehensive tracking program that establishes a separate classroom in every school for the top-performing students could significantly boost the performance of the most talented students in even the poorest neighborhoods, at little or no cost to other students or the District’s budget.”

Brookings Institution State-Level Tracking Study (2016)

States with larger percentages of tracked eighth graders produce larger percentages of high-scoring AP test takers. States where tracking is less prevalent tend to have a smaller proportion of high scorers....States with a larger percentage of kids scoring 3 or better on AP tests in 2013 had a larger percentage of kids in tracked classes four years earlier. That association occurs without any apparent increase in selectivity. The relationship of tracking with AP participation is indistinguishable from zero. Moreover, the finding holds for black, Hispanic, and white subgroups. If eighth grade tracking operates in a manner discriminatory to blacks and Hispanics, it is not apparent here....AP courses represent the end of the pipeline for academically gifted students. If we are serious about expanding opportunity, and serious about increasing the numbers of students of color who not only take AP courses but also score extraordinarily well on AP tests, policymakers need to take another look at strategies for nurturing academic talent in middle schools. Long condemned by political opponents, tracking has been overlooked as a potential tool for promoting equity.

This is the type of research Principal Martin and Diversity Committee should have shared with parents and students so that they could be informed about the likely impact of "Honors for All". Instead they produced a propaganda FAQ devoid of any evidence that "Honors for All" would work at a unique school like Wilson where there are large differences in academic performance.

Thank you for taking the time to collect and cite these studies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To 1:43 - I think your correct point is too subtle for DCUM.

They can’t imagine how their kid’s education can be good if others aren’t excluded.

How does teaching to each child's ability exclude someone?

Because having low expectations for a child creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

When my child was in elementary school and was directed to read “just right “ books (meaning at a level that pushed but did not frustrate her) was the fact that one student has a lower “just right” level than another considered low expectations? It was not, it was considered the level that would help them learn and progress, regardless of whether it was below at or above grade level. Why is it reasonable to push everyone to learn at the same level when clearly some need more challenge and some will succeed better with more support?

Because DCPS does not offer 'more support'at Wilson unless a child has an IEP, and because elementary school is not high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To 1:43 - I think your correct point is too subtle for DCUM.

They can’t imagine how their kid’s education can be good if others aren’t excluded.

How does teaching to each child's ability exclude someone?

Because having low expectations for a child creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So what you are saying is that putting a child in a classroom that teaches below the student's abilities and potential will lead that child not to be as successful as they could be. Am I hearing you right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To 1:43 - I think your correct point is too subtle for DCUM.

They can’t imagine how their kid’s education can be good if others aren’t excluded.

How does teaching to each child's ability exclude someone?

Because having low expectations for a child creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

When my child was in elementary school and was directed to read “just right “ books (meaning at a level that pushed but did not frustrate her) was the fact that one student has a lower “just right” level than another considered low expectations? It was not, it was considered the level that would help them learn and progress, regardless of whether it was below at or above grade level. Why is it reasonable to push everyone to learn at the same level when clearly some need more challenge and some will succeed better with more support?

Because DCPS does not offer 'more support'at Wilson unless a child has an IEP, and because elementary school is not high school.

What does that have to do with anything? I was told by the PP that recognizing that children are at different levels is creating a self fulfilling prophecy of low expectations. That is the opposite of how meeting kids at the levels they are at is considered in elementary school. The question has nothing to do with resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To 1:43 - I think your correct point is too subtle for DCUM.

They can’t imagine how their kid’s education can be good if others aren’t excluded.

How does teaching to each child's ability exclude someone?

Because having low expectations for a child creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Oh give me a break. If a teacher sees a student doing well in a class, they can recommend the student to move up a level. I grew up poor and that’s what happened to me. The underlying problem is not the teachers, it’s the parents. Parents who don’t value education, don’t support their child, or dont have high expectations for their child. Poor children from families who place a greater emphasis on education tend to do well. So don’t blame the teachers for problems outside of the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To 1:43 - I think your correct point is too subtle for DCUM.

They can’t imagine how their kid’s education can be good if others aren’t excluded.

How does teaching to each child's ability exclude someone?

Because having low expectations for a child creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So what you are saying is that putting a child in a classroom that teaches below the student's abilities and potential will lead that child not to be as successful as they could be. Am I hearing you right?

This is an important question. Do you see the full circle here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To 1:43 - I think your correct point is too subtle for DCUM.

They can’t imagine how their kid’s education can be good if others aren’t excluded.

Imagine for a moment that the underlying facts asserted are true and this has nothing to do with race or SES. Some of the kids in a classroom have demonstrated academic strengths and can absorb, retain, process and engage on the subject matters at a very high level (e.g., reading at a college level) at the age of 14 and other students in the same class read at a 5th grade level and cannot (or have no interest in) engage in in depth discussions. How do you think these students can be served well by the same teacher in the same classroom? Does it serve either of them? How are we to improve if ulterior motives are assigned to asking the question?

In reality, what are the numbers at Wilson? Are we talking most kids at or above level and and 5 kids in the room are being given the opportunity to struggle to keep up with them? Or the reverse?

So let's look at some data.

I just pulled up the PARCC ELA data for the 8th-grade classes at Deal, Hardy and Adams (current potential 9th graders for Wilson). We know no one is getting in OOB but there are, presumably, some students entering Wilson who live in the IB area. I did not look at the Math because Wilson does still put students into math tracks.

At each of these feeders, the vast majority of students score 3+ on PARCC ELA (I am going to assume that there is no question that students who score 3+ would have always bee placed in the old Honors English, because I know kids who with that score who, pre-Honors for All, were placed in 9th and 10th grade Honors English.

Deal - 87% 3+ on ELA, or 386 of 444 students.
Adams - 78% 3+ or 88 or 114
Hardy - 57% 3+ or 57 or 65 students

A few years ago there may well have been a vast gap in academic achievement levels among students at Wilson, but increasingly this is not the case. And as Hardy gentrifies over the next 2 years that will be even more the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To 1:43 - I think your correct point is too subtle for DCUM.

They can’t imagine how their kid’s education can be good if others aren’t excluded.

Imagine for a moment that the underlying facts asserted are true and this has nothing to do with race or SES. Some of the kids in a classroom have demonstrated academic strengths and can absorb, retain, process and engage on the subject matters at a very high level (e.g., reading at a college level) at the age of 14 and other students in the same class read at a 5th grade level and cannot (or have no interest in) engage in in depth discussions. How do you think these students can be served well by the same teacher in the same classroom? Does it serve either of them? How are we to improve if ulterior motives are assigned to asking the question?

In reality, what are the numbers at Wilson? Are we talking most kids at or above level and and 5 kids in the room are being given the opportunity to struggle to keep up with them? Or the reverse?

So let's look at some data.

I just pulled up the PARCC ELA data for the 8th-grade classes at Deal, Hardy and Adams (current potential 9th graders for Wilson). We know no one is getting in OOB but there are, presumably, some students entering Wilson who live in the IB area. I did not look at the Math because Wilson does still put students into math tracks.

At each of these feeders, the vast majority of students score 3+ on PARCC ELA (I am going to assume that there is no question that students who score 3+ would have always bee placed in the old Honors English, because I know kids who with that score who, pre-Honors for All, were placed in 9th and 10th grade Honors English.

Deal - 87% 3+ on ELA, or 386 of 444 students.
Adams - 78% 3+ or 88 or 114
Hardy - 57% 3+ or 57 or 65 students

A few years ago there may well have been a vast gap in academic achievement levels among students at Wilson, but increasingly this is not the case. And as Hardy gentrifies over the next 2 years that will be even more the case.

So why does it make sense to have 9 th grade being a boring, unproductive year for many students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To 1:43 - I think your correct point is too subtle for DCUM.

They can’t imagine how their kid’s education can be good if others aren’t excluded.

Imagine for a moment that the underlying facts asserted are true and this has nothing to do with race or SES. Some of the kids in a classroom have demonstrated academic strengths and can absorb, retain, process and engage on the subject matters at a very high level (e.g., reading at a college level) at the age of 14 and other students in the same class read at a 5th grade level and cannot (or have no interest in) engage in in depth discussions. How do you think these students can be served well by the same teacher in the same classroom? Does it serve either of them? How are we to improve if ulterior motives are assigned to asking the question?

In reality, what are the numbers at Wilson? Are we talking most kids at or above level and and 5 kids in the room are being given the opportunity to struggle to keep up with them? Or the reverse?

So let's look at some data.

I just pulled up the PARCC ELA data for the 8th-grade classes at Deal, Hardy and Adams (current potential 9th graders for Wilson). We know no one is getting in OOB but there are, presumably, some students entering Wilson who live in the IB area. I did not look at the Math because Wilson does still put students into math tracks.

At each of these feeders, the vast majority of students score 3+ on PARCC ELA (I am going to assume that there is no question that students who score 3+ would have always bee placed in the old Honors English, because I know kids who with that score who, pre-Honors for All, were placed in 9th and 10th grade Honors English.

Deal - 87% 3+ on ELA, or 386 of 444 students.
Adams - 78% 3+ or 88 or 114
Hardy - 57% 3+ or 57 or 65 students

A few years ago there may well have been a vast gap in academic achievement levels among students at Wilson, but increasingly this is not the case. And as Hardy gentrifies over the next 2 years that will be even more the case.

So why does it make sense to have 9 th grade being a boring, unproductive year for many students?

What you do not understand is that these are the SAME honors class that have existed since before Martin became principal. It was NOT "dumbed down". All that has changed is that class sizes are smaller and there isn't another track for 'dumb' kids, as students at Wilson called it.

[Anonymous]

The PARCC numbers are really helpful. I think no matter how you slice it (I assumed 100 kids don’t go to Wilson and they were all among the 3+ scorers) that you have 80% of the 9th graders scoring 3+.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To 1:43 - I think your correct point is too subtle for DCUM.

They can’t imagine how their kid’s education can be good if others aren’t excluded.

Imagine for a moment that the underlying facts asserted are true and this has nothing to do with race or SES. Some of the kids in a classroom have demonstrated academic strengths and can absorb, retain, process and engage on the subject matters at a very high level (e.g., reading at a college level) at the age of 14 and other students in the same class read at a 5th grade level and cannot (or have no interest in) engage in in depth discussions. How do you think these students can be served well by the same teacher in the same classroom? Does it serve either of them? How are we to improve if ulterior motives are assigned to asking the question?

In reality, what are the numbers at Wilson? Are we talking most kids at or above level and and 5 kids in the room are being given the opportunity to struggle to keep up with them? Or the reverse?

So let's look at some data.

I just pulled up the PARCC ELA data for the 8th-grade classes at Deal, Hardy and Adams (current potential 9th graders for Wilson). We know no one is getting in OOB but there are, presumably, some students entering Wilson who live in the IB area. I did not look at the Math because Wilson does still put students into math tracks.

At each of these feeders, the vast majority of students score 3+ on PARCC ELA (I am going to assume that there is no question that students who score 3+ would have always bee placed in the old Honors English, because I know kids who with that score who, pre-Honors for All, were placed in 9th and 10th grade Honors English.

Deal - 87% 3+ on ELA, or 386 of 444 students.
Adams - 78% 3+ or 88 or 114
Hardy - 57% 3+ or 57 or 65 students

A few years ago there may well have been a vast gap in academic achievement levels among students at Wilson, but increasingly this is not the case. And as Hardy gentrifies over the next 2 years that will be even more the case.

So why does it make sense to have 9 th grade being a boring, unproductive year for many students?

What you do not understand is that these are the SAME honors class that have existed since before Martin became principal. It was NOT "dumbed down". All that has changed is that class sizes are smaller and there isn't another track for 'dumb' kids, as students at Wilson called it.

Ok. So these are the same classes. So why does it make sense for 9th grade to a boring, unproductive year for so many students?

That’s the chief thing I hear about Wilson that makes me wary of it. Whether a long-standing or new problem, it’s a problem.