Should the Ed Reformers just quit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming that this thread is riffing off of yesterday's PARCC scores, it seems that a couple schools e.g. KIPP and DC Prep - have figured out how to get their students to do nearly as well as white, affluent students.

I think that DCPS and the rest of the charters need to go spend some time in those schools and start replicating what they are doing.

What they are doing is selecting the "best" students from the most functional families (not all poor black families are the same). In order to go to KIPP, parents need the resources and the wherewithal to apply their kid to the lottery and to manage the transportation issues. They then must sign a pledge to commit to a certain number of parent participation hours. Then they also need to get their kid to school for frequent Saturday hours. All of these things are not possible for the most dysfunctional families, who are then concentrated in schools like Turner and Motten, with less than 5% proficiency rates.

At the middle and high school level, where kids from dysfunctional families need so much more -- in terms of social workers and guidance counselors -- the fact that their peers from more functional families are going to charters and OOB leaves the school less money for non-classroom staff.

Well, I'm happy for those "best" students from the most functional [poor black] families because if it weren't for KIPP they too would be languishing and failing at the 5% schools. There needs to be a completely different model for what you term as the "most dysfunctional families." Something that is targeted to their extreme need. I'm no educator and I don't know what that model looks like, but slamming schools like KIPP (and in doing so, the families that attend there) for the amazing strides they've made is counterproductive.

I don't see where pp slammed KiPP - the message is that something like that should be accessible to students with less parental support

[Anonymous]

The goal is wrong.

The achievement gap can not be closed, it can only be narrowed. And it can't be narrowed by schools alone. Too much depends on outside forces that schools can't control.
So the City and the Schools need to decide together on a plan and implement it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The goal is wrong.

The achievement gap can not be closed, it can only be narrowed. And it can't be narrowed by schools alone. Too much depends on outside forces that schools can't control.
So the City and the Schools need to decide together on a plan and implement it.

Right, but this idea involves no bold plans and no heroes and no fast turnaround, so DC will never go for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming that this thread is riffing off of yesterday's PARCC scores, it seems that a couple schools e.g. KIPP and DC Prep - have figured out how to get their students to do nearly as well as white, affluent students.

I think that DCPS and the rest of the charters need to go spend some time in those schools and start replicating what they are doing.

What they are doing is selecting the "best" students from the most functional families (not all poor black families are the same). In order to go to KIPP, parents need the resources and the wherewithal to apply their kid to the lottery and to manage the transportation issues. They then must sign a pledge to commit to a certain number of parent participation hours. Then they also need to get their kid to school for frequent Saturday hours. All of these things are not possible for the most dysfunctional families, who are then concentrated in schools like Turner and Motten, with less than 5% proficiency rates.

At the middle and high school level, where kids from dysfunctional families need so much more -- in terms of social workers and guidance counselors -- the fact that their peers from more functional families are going to charters and OOB leaves the school less money for non-classroom staff.

Well, I'm happy for those "best" students from the most functional [poor black] families because if it weren't for KIPP they too would be languishing and failing at the 5% schools. There needs to be a completely different model for what you term as the "most dysfunctional families." Something that is targeted to their extreme need. I'm no educator and I don't know what that model looks like, but slamming schools like KIPP (and in doing so, the families that attend there) for the amazing strides they've made is counterproductive.

I don't see where pp slammed KiPP - the message is that something like that should be accessible to students with less parental support

Maybe not slammed but dismissed it out of hand by saying that it attracts motivated students. Extended school days and Saturday school probably needs to be part of the solution and, to her credit, Chancellor has been trying to implement that for the last few years. But the WTU and higher SES parents are making it very difficult, if not impossible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It all starts at home. Educators cannot be both educators and parents, although many of them admirably try. Parents must be engaged in their child's education and provide basics like adequate sleep and nourishment. When these baseline things are not being provided it's difficult to see how a school can make up for all of the inadequacies regardless of how many wrap-around services they provide.

You're right, but that would mean that administrators aren't miracle workers, and they can't admit that. It doesn't help that they've been taught to think of themselves that way and can't accept the fact that they are not as wonderful as they thought.

It is not politically palatable to say we can't fix this problem. Headstart was supposed to be the great equalizer, but it wasn't. Because by the time the child gets to preschool,much of the damage is irreparable.
[url]
http://literacy.rice.edu/thirty-million-word-gap[/url]


The finding that children living in poverty hear fewer than a third of the words heard by children from higher-income families has significant implications in the long run. When extrapolated to the words heard by a child within the first four years of their life these results reveal a 30 million word difference. That is, a child from a high-income family will experience 30 million more words within the first four years of life than a child from a low-income family. This gap does nothing but grow as the years progress, ensuring slow growth for children who are economically disadvantaged and accelerated growth for those from more privileged backgrounds.

In addition to a lack of exposure to these 30 million words, the words a child from a low-income family has typically mastered are often negative directives, meaning words of discouragement. The ratios of encouraging versus discouraging feedback found within the study, when extrapolated, evidences that by age four, the average child from a family on welfare will hear 125,000 more words of discouragement than encouragement. When compared to the 560,000 more words of praise as opposed to discouragement that a child from a high-income family will receive, this disparity is extraordinarily vast.

The established connection between what a parent says and what a child learns has more severe implications than previously anticipated. Though Hart and Risley are quick to indicate that each child received no shortage of love and care, the immense differences in communication styles found along socio-economic lines are of far greater consequence than any parent could have imagined. The resulting disparities in vocabulary growth and language development are of great concern and prove the home does truly hold the key to early childhood success.

[Anonymous]

I'm intrigued by the SEED PCS model of school week boarding school in Ward 7. How are they doing? Is the school academically/socially/emotionally successful and is the model economically viable?

[Anonymous]

@9:24:

I'm familiar with this research. I'm also from a background not too different from many of these kids (as in, I'm black and my family was more or less middle-class, but I went to school with many kids from poor and working class backgrounds, who lived in housing projects, etc.). I think the question now is what do we do in the way of enrichment for these students? We can't simply throw up our hands--the costs to society are too high and personally, I can't stomach the wasted potential. Also, is there the political will to make the type of investment that can have real impact, not just lip service?

I don't know how expensive such a program would be--but I like what little I've heard about Geoffrey Canada's program up in Harlem. It's not without its own problems (high teacher turnover, etc.), but the early data are encouraging, IMO. I particularly like the idea of the Baby College for parents of children ages 0-3:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlem_Children%27s_Zone

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm intrigued by the SEED PCS model of school week boarding school in Ward 7. How are they doing? Is the school academically/socially/emotionally successful and is the model economically viable?

SEED students did really well on PARCC ELA - not as well on math. http://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/report/PARCC%20HS%20All%20School%20Rates%20%20(1).pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm intrigued by the SEED PCS model of school week boarding school in Ward 7. How are they doing? Is the school academically/socially/emotionally successful and is the model economically viable?

SEED students did really well on PARCC ELA - not as well on math. http://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/report/PARCC%20HS%20All%20School%20Rates%20%20(1).pdf

http://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/report/PARCC%20HS%20All%20School%20Rates%20%20(1).pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm intrigued by the SEED PCS model of school week boarding school in Ward 7. How are they doing? Is the school academically/socially/emotionally successful and is the model economically viable?

SEED students did really well on PARCC ELA - not as well on math. http://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/report/PARCC%20HS%20All%20School%20Rates%20%20(1).pdf

http://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/report/PARCC%20HS%20All%20School%20Rates%20%20(1).pdf

Can't get the link to work but it's google-able "SEED PCS PARCC"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:@9:24:

I'm familiar with this research. I'm also from a background not too different from many of these kids (as in, I'm black and my family was more or less middle-class, but I went to school with many kids from poor and working class backgrounds, who lived in housing projects, etc.). I think the question now is what do we do in the way of enrichment for these students? We can't simply throw up our hands--the costs to society are too high and personally, I can't stomach the wasted potential. Also, is there the political will to make the type of investment that can have real impact, not just lip service?

I don't know how expensive such a program would be--but I like what little I've heard about Geoffrey Canada's program up in Harlem. It's not without its own problems (high teacher turnover, etc.), but the early data are encouraging, IMO. I particularly like the idea of the Baby College for parents of children ages 0-3:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlem_Children%27s_Zone

Correct, and though it is a difficult problem, with no easy answers, the first step is to fire all the DCPS admin who came in as saviors of public education seeking glory, fame and high income for themselves. All they have achieved is the high income -- and a trail of hubris and defeat.

What really irks me is all the lost time (and kids' education) spent chasing the reformers' self-aggrandizing dream: their master plan of assessing and firing teachers as the solution to DC's education problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming that this thread is riffing off of yesterday's PARCC scores, it seems that a couple schools e.g. KIPP and DC Prep - have figured out how to get their students to do nearly as well as white, affluent students.

I think that DCPS and the rest of the charters need to go spend some time in those schools and start replicating what they are doing.

What they are doing is selecting the "best" students from the most functional families (not all poor black families are the same). In order to go to KIPP, parents need the resources and the wherewithal to apply their kid to the lottery and to manage the transportation issues. They then must sign a pledge to commit to a certain number of parent participation hours. Then they also need to get their kid to school for frequent Saturday hours. All of these things are not possible for the most dysfunctional families, who are then concentrated in schools like Turner and Motten, with less than 5% proficiency rates.

At the middle and high school level, where kids from dysfunctional families need so much more -- in terms of social workers and guidance counselors -- the fact that their peers from more functional families are going to charters and OOB leaves the school less money for non-classroom staff.

And DC Prep? What's your criticism of their approach?

I don't know anything about DC Prep, although many of the points are the same, such as transportation barriers.

My point wasn't to criticize the successful charter schools -- it's great that they provide opportunities for their families -- but to say that it's not as simple as complaining that dcps isn't doing the same thing. Poor dcps students look different from poor charter school students and need different things.

[Anonymous]

Sort of. Poor charter students tend to have slightly more able and motivated parents, or grandparents, than poor DCPS students. Mostly they simply have access to a better school their families get them to easily. The difference isn't enormous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming that this thread is riffing off of yesterday's PARCC scores, it seems that a couple schools e.g. KIPP and DC Prep - have figured out how to get their students to do nearly as well as white, affluent students.

I think that DCPS and the rest of the charters need to go spend some time in those schools and start replicating what they are doing.

What they are doing is selecting the "best" students from the most functional families (not all poor black families are the same). In order to go to KIPP, parents need the resources and the wherewithal to apply their kid to the lottery and to manage the transportation issues. They then must sign a pledge to commit to a certain number of parent participation hours. Then they also need to get their kid to school for frequent Saturday hours. All of these things are not possible for the most dysfunctional families, who are then concentrated in schools like Turner and Motten, with less than 5% proficiency rates.

At the middle and high school level, where kids from dysfunctional families need so much more -- in terms of social workers and guidance counselors -- the fact that their peers from more functional families are going to charters and OOB leaves the school less money for non-classroom staff.

Well, I'm happy for those "best" students from the most functional [poor black] families because if it weren't for KIPP they too would be languishing and failing at the 5% schools. There needs to be a completely different model for what you term as the "most dysfunctional families." Something that is targeted to their extreme need. I'm no educator and I don't know what that model looks like, but slamming schools like KIPP (and in doing so, the families that attend there) for the amazing strides they've made is counterproductive.

I don't see where pp slammed KiPP - the message is that something like that should be accessible to students with less parental support

Maybe not slammed but dismissed it out of hand by saying that it attracts motivated students. Extended school days and Saturday school probably needs to be part of the solution and, to her credit, Chancellor has been trying to implement that for the last few years. But the WTU and higher SES parents are making it very difficult, if not impossible.

I think one of the District education leaders' biggest mistakes is this idea that every "solution" must be applied across the board. Higher SES parents (like me) are against an extended school day and Saturday school for my children because they do not need it. Their school is already succeeding in providing what they are supposed to in terms of academic education in the time that we already entrust with them. What my children need after 3:15 and on the weekends is the quality, enrichment time they get with their family by preparing and eating meals together while talking about our day, going over homework, going on trips, visiting museums, doing chores to learn responsibility, etc. Extending the school day (year or week) might be a great solution for at-risk children whose home life challenges are immense and every hour away from that environment is a plus. But I certainly do not trust that DCPS would take additional hours of my child's life and do more with it than my husband and I would already do. We have to recognize that solutions can't be one size fits all, they need to take into account what problems they are actually trying to solve.

[Anonymous]

+1000. DCPS' seriously hackneyed enthusiasm for one-size-fits-all solutions is a real problem.