quality DCPS middle school that won't teach down to "meet students where they are?"

[Anonymous]

but to be clear it's not the students who are behind who are the problem per se, it's that DCPS won't set a pace and keep it regardless of those who can't keep up. It's merciless but it seems clear that not moving at a reasonable pace along a strong curriculum to "leave no child behind" is creating a structural failure across the system. At least one more middle school that'd not slow down would help fix this.

[Anonymous]

The problem is that the model of "teaching to where kids are at" is precisely what they already do and is predicated on the idea of "where kids are at" is the lowest common denominator.

It completely misses the fact that a lot of kids are capable of performing at a higher level than what DCPS is delivering.

This is why parents all over the city, in every ward are dumping DCPS and are instead flocking to charters, because they are dissatisfied with where DCPS thinks kids are at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rather than a test-in middle school, how about we take one middle school somewhere, or maybe even the closed McFarland location, and establish a middle school that teaches the course load of a quality middle school, e.g., IB middle years, from the get-go, without trying to teach anything remedially to "meet students where they are?"

Students could take a test at entry to show where they are and outsiders could offer support, but the expectation from the beginning would be that the classes would move along regardless of whether students understood the advanced materials, and if they get Fs at the end of the term and fail out, so be it, this school is not for them. Start with that expectation and no child or parent will have excuses.

Wouldn't this solve a major problem with quality and distribution of quality schools in the City? It would require a lot of up front understanding why it was being created and that it would never stoop to remediate, but it would very quickly create something we all want and draw students from throughout the City. Right?

So what you're saying is that teacher's shouldn't do their job of helping students learn their material? If a student doesn't get it, the teacher should say 'tough titties" and kicks them out? Sounds like you want to go to private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that the model of "teaching to where kids are at" is precisely what they already do and is predicated on the idea of "where kids are at" is the lowest common denominator.

It completely misses the fact that a lot of kids are capable of performing at a higher level than what DCPS is delivering.

This is why parents all over the city, in every ward are dumping DCPS and are instead flocking to charters, because they are dissatisfied with where DCPS thinks kids are at.

If kids are entering middle school, doing work at a 2nd-4th grade level then they need more foundational skills to get to middle school instruction. It isn't a matter of lack of intelligence but lack of proper education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what you're saying is that teacher's shouldn't do their job of helping students learn their material? If a student doesn't get it, the teacher should say 'tough titties" and kicks them out? Sounds like you want to go to private school.

Anonymous wrote:If kids are entering middle school, doing work at a 2nd-4th grade level then they need more foundational skills to get to middle school instruction. It isn't a matter of lack of intelligence but lack of proper education.

These both reinforce the point the OP was making. The suggestion really boils down to tracking all kids appropriately to their needs. Theoretically, everyone gets a proper education and has a chance to catch up or accelerate.

The problems are going to come down to SES segregation. How do you make sure you aren't creating it as a side effect?

[Anonymous]

So what you're saying is that teacher's shouldn't do their job of helping students learn their material? If a student doesn't get it, the teacher should say 'tough titties" and kicks them out? Sounds like you want to go to private school.

Not private school. Get me from keeping the school on a remedial pace to keeping students challenged. My idea was to have a school that will leave behind students who can't keep up rather than waiting for them. What are your ideas?

[Anonymous]

One problem is the achievement gap along race and class. If you set the class to move along, do you set it at the top group's achievement level and hope to draw up all who want to keep up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that the model of "teaching to where kids are at" is precisely what they already do and is predicated on the idea of "where kids are at" is the lowest common denominator.

It completely misses the fact that a lot of kids are capable of performing at a higher level than what DCPS is delivering.

This is why parents all over the city, in every ward are dumping DCPS and are instead flocking to charters, because they are dissatisfied with where DCPS thinks kids are at.

If kids are entering middle school, doing work at a 2nd-4th grade level then they need more foundational skills to get to middle school instruction. It isn't a matter of lack of intelligence but lack of proper education.

Why not try and shore up the elementary schools first, before screwing with middle schools? The sooner some of the problem areas are nipped in the bud, whether academic, behavioral, et cetera - the better. Those earliest years are often the most important, foundationally. It would probably also lessen the disparities in performance later on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone refer me to some research that suggests that IB Middle Years is a quality program, i.e. leads to better performance on external tests or better critical thinking skills? I've heard such mixed reviews, and I haven't found their websites to be illuminating.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that the model of "teaching to where kids are at" is precisely what they already do and is predicated on the idea of "where kids are at" is the lowest common denominator.

It completely misses the fact that a lot of kids are capable of performing at a higher level than what DCPS is delivering.

This is why parents all over the city, in every ward are dumping DCPS and are instead flocking to charters, because they are dissatisfied with where DCPS thinks kids are at.

If kids are entering middle school, doing work at a 2nd-4th grade level then they need more foundational skills to get to middle school instruction. It isn't a matter of lack of intelligence but lack of proper education.

Why not try and shore up the elementary schools first, before screwing with middle schools? The sooner some of the problem areas are nipped in the bud, whether academic, behavioral, et cetera - the better. Those earliest years are often the most important, foundationally. It would probably also lessen the disparities in performance later on.

Who is "screwing with the middle schools"? What about the kids that are in or about to ent middle school, they just lose out because of poor timing. Why can't you develop programs to address both those that are accelerated and those that still need basic skills at the same time you work to improve the elementary schools? Why does it have to be an either or choice?

[Anonymous]

I understand a focus on avoiding creation of problem children through focus on earlier ages but you don't throw your hands up at 6th grade and say we won't change a thing.

If what you really mean is, grandfather everyone who's got a good thing going, that seems likely doesn't it?

But for the good of the City and my kids I'm not going to wait 5 or 10 years to create citywide solutions on middle school, high school, or any age/grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that the model of "teaching to where kids are at" is precisely what they already do and is predicated on the idea of "where kids are at" is the lowest common denominator.

It completely misses the fact that a lot of kids are capable of performing at a higher level than what DCPS is delivering.

This is why parents all over the city, in every ward are dumping DCPS and are instead flocking to charters, because they are dissatisfied with where DCPS thinks kids are at.

If kids are entering middle school, doing work at a 2nd-4th grade level then they need more foundational skills to get to middle school instruction. It isn't a matter of lack of intelligence but lack of proper education.

Why not try and shore up the elementary schools first, before screwing with middle schools? The sooner some of the problem areas are nipped in the bud, whether academic, behavioral, et cetera - the better. Those earliest years are often the most important, foundationally. It would probably also lessen the disparities in performance later on.

Who is "screwing with the middle schools"? What about the kids that are in or about to ent middle school, they just lose out because of poor timing. Why can't you develop programs to address both those that are accelerated and those that still need basic skills at the same time you work to improve the elementary schools? Why does it have to be an either or choice?

I'm not opposed to having an accelerated track - but what I was saying is that if the elementary schools were stronger in the first place, there wouldn't be as much of a need for as widely divergent tracks in middle schools later on down the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that the model of "teaching to where kids are at" is precisely what they already do and is predicated on the idea of "where kids are at" is the lowest common denominator.

It completely misses the fact that a lot of kids are capable of performing at a higher level than what DCPS is delivering.

This is why parents all over the city, in every ward are dumping DCPS and are instead flocking to charters, because they are dissatisfied with where DCPS thinks kids are at.

If kids are entering middle school, doing work at a 2nd-4th grade level then they need more foundational skills to get to middle school instruction. It isn't a matter of lack of intelligence but lack of proper education.

Why not try and shore up the elementary schools first, before screwing with middle schools? The sooner some of the problem areas are nipped in the bud, whether academic, behavioral, et cetera - the better. Those earliest years are often the most important, foundationally. It would probably also lessen the disparities in performance later on.

Who is "screwing with the middle schools"? What about the kids that are in or about to ent middle school, they just lose out because of poor timing. Why can't you develop programs to address both those that are accelerated and those that still need basic skills at the same time you work to improve the elementary schools? Why does it have to be an either or choice?

I'm not opposed to having an accelerated track - but what I was saying is that if the elementary schools were stronger in the first place, there wouldn't be as much of a need for as widely divergent tracks in middle schools later on down the road.

Actually there most likely would still be a need for accelerated tracks since, even with good schooling, some kids will not be ever able to do the accelerated curricula that other kids thrive on. The fact is that we all have different abilities. My kid happens to be an advanced learner and will never be gifted athletically. Other kids are gifted athletically or musically or in other ways. College prep is not for all and good vocational tracks can offer many kids the road to success. Heck, a family member had a neighbor who was a millionaire plumber! There is no shame in that at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So what you're saying is that teacher's shouldn't do their job of helping students learn their material? If a student doesn't get it, the teacher should say 'tough titties" and kicks them out? Sounds like you want to go to private school.

Not private school. Get me from keeping the school on a remedial pace to keeping students challenged. My idea was to have a school that will leave behind students who can't keep up rather than waiting for them. What are your ideas?

What a reprehensible person you are. Education is for everyone. So you want to design a school where kids to purposefully fail kids?

[Anonymous]

the problem is the district has become so used to mediocre elementary schools that they have kept middle school at a low level because kids would flunk out with the small amount of prep they were getting. Now we have easily 10-15 good elementary schools in the district, esp. once you count charters, and there are only 2-3 high quality middle schools where the kids to go to get a comparable middle school education. It's a complete embarrassment.

This should be a key litmus test for every mayoral candidate and city council candidate. we should make them each propose a plan, not just a few soundbites and say the kind of person they would want as chancellor of DC schools.