Is DCPS tanking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:great. now i am upset because we decided to go with a public pre-k for next year.

Don't panic. For the most part, the individual school is still more important than Rhee in determining your child's experience.

[Anonymous]

to PP hmmm, sounds like you left DCPS after Rhee's first year, or maybe before she was even there. So do you think you can give a true description of what its like now, under Rhee?
(PS This is not meant to sound rude, but Rhee could not fix it all that fast!)

[Anonymous]

oops- not to PP, but to 1333 poster

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny, I hear exactly the opposite -- that DCPS are an exciting place to be these days. Guess it depends who you talk to.

If that is so, tell us which one your child goes to.

This was sort of my point with the post -- OP's post was all about what she's hearing from friends. She seemed to be drawing some pretty big conclusions on some pretty vague evidence. So, I responded with what I'm hearing. FWIW, my kids are in pre-school and will attend DCPS next year. Where are OP's kids in school?

[Anonymous]

OP here--my friends are DCPS teachers at 'good schools'. They seemed worn out by spring by the desperation to beat the test. Daily practice of rehearsed questions on top of EVERYTHING else.... Just sort of quenching the flame. If you think about it, Rhee trumpeted a lot about the gains in testing made last year --which actually is a pattern seen in the second year of all newly introduced tests as children gain familiarity-- she is going to need to keep maintaining that pattern to validate the policies she is implementing. There will be a lot of scrutiny of this year's results, and I think she has been trying to get out ahead of that with daily drubbing kids and teachers with testing. I have heard of schools where the children sit in the hallway at lunch and do testing drills, every single day. Meanwhile, change brings instability, her kind more than most since her moves are often quite drastic--so teachers are off balance by that, feet to the fire on testing...and tired. Not all (and I am talking about the energetic, young, innovative but truly professional teachers--not TFA fly by nights--feel this is what they signed up to do). That's all.

[Anonymous]

That's what I'm hearing too from friends who have kids in DCPS, from teachers, from friends of teachers. And the "good" school are not immune.

That said, pre-K isn't going to be a high-stakes testing environment. It's a good way to check out the school/system from the inside and still have time to start elsewhere if you decide DCPS isn't the right choice for your DC.

[Anonymous]

I'm hearing similar stories from friends and teachers at "good" DCPS schools.
I would not worry about pre-K or even K or 1st.

[Anonymous]

Standardized tests start in 3rd grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not all (and I am talking about the energetic, young, innovative but truly professional teachers--not TFA fly by nights--feel this is what they signed up to do). That's all.

Aha.

This statement would carry a lot more credibility if it weren't shackled to a political agenda.

[Anonymous]

Why?

[Anonymous]

I hardly am trying to bring down TFA. It has its role in society. Just wish it weren't her only point of recruitment.

[Anonymous]

Not to freak you out, but "falling behind" is possible even in K/1/2. We were at DCPS in a good upper NW school and left because we could see it happening. In preK, reading was not taught -- just letters -- even to kids who were ready for more. I taught my child to read after the first quarter of Pre-k. In K, reading was still not taught -- only letters and their associated sounds. By the time reading was systematically taught in 1st grade, my child and a number of others had already been reading for a year or more. These early reading children had a level of fluency in reading and had acquired a breadth of substantive knowledge thru their reading that makes it difficult for other kids to "catch up."

In our DCPS, there was a deliberate refusal to teach kids at different levels -- all kids learned the same math and read the same books, even if some already knew the material. We finally left DCPS for MoCo. At least half the students in the MoCo school were allowed to advance to a math group ahead of their chronological age (i.e. 3rd graders learning 4th grade math). My child skipped a year of math (but not because she learned it in DCPS). By the end of high school, the math pathways available in MCPS, if chosen, can take a child further than in DCPS.

Finally, while we were unhappy with the lack of services in DCPS for already advanced learners, I knew a number of parents with kids at the opposite end of the spectrum. These were kids who were a year or more behind in reading but were never identified as such nor given support to catch up by the DCPS school.

After 4 years, we left one of the "great upper NW" DCPS schools, because we could see that the academics weren't cutting it.

Now DCPS may be different from a charter, but I would say that no matter where you are, it is your job as a parent to keep a watchful eye on your child's skill level and make sure that he/she is getting academic services commensurate with their skill level or getting support to catch up if behind.

[Anonymous]

21:59 I don't know where you went but my child learned to read in K, really well, at a DCPS school, as did his classmates. DCPS does teach to the middle, but does start "tracking" math classes in upper elementary. Yes if a K class was not teaching reading, I'd wonder. When was this? Before Janey?

[Anonymous]

I wish Janey would come back. Boring, methodical but slowly making effective change. In fact, when I think about it-- Tony Williams : Adrian Fenty as Janey : Rhee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: These early reading children had a level of fluency in reading and had acquired a breadth of substantive knowledge thru their reading that makes it difficult for other kids to "catch up."

This is just not true. There's a wide range of normal with respect to when kids (including smart kids) start reading and, ultimately, it makes little or no difference in whether a kid starts reading for content in 1st or 3rd grade. Teaching your kid to read as soon as possible may yield bragging rights in the short-term, but not much else. If you look at the kids who are at the top of their class at the end of high school, you're going to see a different group than the ones who were reading before 1st grade. (Some overlap, of course, but there will be lots of kids who weren't early readers and a number of early readers will be missing).

Long story short, don't choose a school based on how early it teaches reading. And don't worry that your kid will be left in the dust if s/he doesn't read fluently by the end of 1st grade. Pushing a kid to read can really turn kids off of reading. And leading a kid to believe that early reading is a sign of his or her intellectual superiority can lead to a real let down by 3rd grade when being able to read ceases to be a noteworthy accomplishment.

It's not how fast or soon you read that matters, it's how well. And reading isn't just about decoding -- it's about interpretation, sensitivity to nuances of language, the ability to analyze how a text is put together, etc. A kid who is read to in the early elementary school years may be learning more of those kinds of skills than a kid who is being pushed to read for him or herself.