Are in boundary families leaving Hardy because if MacArthur?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I looked on the website and the (public) video section shows sweet, happy kids:

https://www.hardyms.org/m/video/index.jsp

It seems like there is a good majority of them. Troubling ones are a bit everywhere unfortunately, but certain posters make it sound like the situation is a disaster..

My kids are only in ES and I keep reading this board since I am nervous about middle school. Maybe I shouldn’t!

I am a parent at Hardy after being a huge Hardy proponent (from the outside) for years.

The school needs to spend a little bit of time getting back to basics. General maintenance and custodial issues send the wrong message to students and parents. Probably not unique to Hardy, but the administration has to demonstrate that they're on top of the visible stuff in order to have trust for the invisible stuff.

The budget cuts have had a profound effect on the school. Most directly, electives were cut. This sucks, but the repercussions extend from there. There are fewer teachers and staff around to provide oversight of the students. I presume this is related to the reports of fighting that I've heard/read. It also means there are few breaks from "academic" classes. Coupled with students -- all students -- being relatively feral following a disastrous lock-out from schools during the pandemic, the need for more teachers, more staff, and more electives could not be more heightened.

It is terribly unfortunate that DCPS cut Hardy's budget despite (actually, because of) an increase in enrollment during the pandemic. It has set the school back and it remains to be seen if it can recover. Atop that, installing a new principal at the same time as (a) return from pandemic and (b) budget cuts borders between negligent and hostile.

I remain optimistic for Hardy, but I'm fearful there may be some time until it gets back to where it was and where it was going. Hopefully this is a one-year blip, but I think it is too early to tell.

Separately, I am highly optimistic about Macarthur. The school is completely set-up to succeed. The main threat now is DCPS kneecapping it through some stupidity like they did with Hardy this year.

I know all budgeting is hard to understand… but I cannot understand why DSPS doesn’t have uniformed standards for electives, and why DCPS allows major budget shocks to happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:2/3 to 3/4 of the kids are Hardy now are from one of the feeder schools - Eaton, Mann, Hyde, Key, Stoddert. That's who these so-called 'scary' kids are at Hardy... DC goes to Hardy. Some typical middle school drama that has happened - but generally the kids are the same from the feeder attended with some intermingling with some kids from other feeders as friend groups morph around. Kids seem to like the more flexible atmosphere allowed by a relatively small school - they can 'navigate' the school during advisory to follow up with teachers on school work and assignments. I personally like the more relaxed approach to things like many teachers giving second chance homework and second chance tests, where grades from a first and second test can be averaged. That has been shown to be a highly legit way to ensure kids learn the material and build a foundation of knowledge - some states have even adopted as a model based on being better for learning. No, the kids don't have tons of hours of homework, but is that really a major advantage long term either academically or for mental health or building other interests. Large %s of the kids are taking higher level math, doing good ELA assignments, etc. The limited electives with the budget cuts are really bad. The admin/teachers should monitor recess better including they know where the limited numbers of fights happen but don't seem to monitor well (many of those fights just like in the burbs are b/w relatively privileged kids testing out their adolescent-ness), and the principal doesn't seem like the most attuned (but DC reports little to no real opinion or caring about him), and some of the teachers are better than others.... but overall, it's a public school with some but limited resources, a significant majority of relatively well off kids with relatively well off parents, and it's not a pressure cooker but DC seems to be learning what they need to learn...

WRT homework - how do they expect kids who are not naturals at math or writing to learn without homework? I feel like the “no homework” thing effectively means you have to get tutoring unless your kid is naturally good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not really. In fact, research shows that homework is good.

The most comprehensive research on homework to date comes from a 2006 meta-analysis by Duke University psychology professor Harris Cooper, who found evidence of a positive correlation between homework and student achievement, meaning students who did homework performed better in school. The correlation was stronger for older students—in seventh through 12th grade—than for those in younger grades, for whom there was a weak relationship between homework and performance.

Cooper’s analysis focused on how homework impacts academic achievement—test scores, for example. His report noted that homework is also thought to improve study habits, attitudes toward school, self-discipline, inquisitiveness and independent problem solving skills. On the other hand, some studies he examined showed that homework can cause physical and emotional fatigue, fuel negative attitudes about learning and limit leisure time for children. At the end of his analysis, Cooper recommended further study of such potential effects of homework.

Despite the weak correlation between homework and performance for young children, Cooper argues that a small amount of homework is useful for all students. Second-graders should not be doing two hours of homework each night, he said, but they also shouldn’t be doing no homework.

This is, more or less, just plagiarized from a Time magazine article (https://time.com/4466390/homework-debate-research/). I actually want to know about rigorous academic studies on this, not pop descriptions and not really meta-analyses. A meta-analysis doesn't hold a candle to an rct or even a compelling diff-in-diff design.

I mean, do you really need a RCT to support the idea that some/most kids learn more and better if they do more work? Think about the way you learn something new. You study, right? I can believe there is some uncertainty about ages and volume of homework, but homework is essentially practice, and it’s still to say “oh, maybe somehow practice does not mattet for algebra!”

[Anonymous]

Look up opportunity cost. Homework can (and probably does) have value. The question is whether the value outweighs that produced by other uses of that time, or if that values comes with less obvious negatives.

Welcome to science. If you think this stuff is obvious and not in need of rigorous evaluation, then you must be new here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look up opportunity cost. Homework can (and probably does) have value. The question is whether the value outweighs that produced by other uses of that time, or if that values comes with less obvious negatives.

Welcome to science. If you think this stuff is obvious and not in need of rigorous evaluation, then you must be new here.

I mean, I have no issue with someone wanting to study this. But the idea that "science" is going to come up with a uniform and stable answer about how homework balances against other uses of time for every kid ... is pretty unlikely, if not impossible. In the interim, it seems like we need to rely on some common sense and experienced teachers, and an understanding of how our kids learn. As well, the idea that we should cancel homework until this mythical scientific consensus emerges is just a bit problematic. For now, it seems clear to my that my MS kids needs some homework to learn math. Is that really that controversial?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look up opportunity cost. Homework can (and probably does) have value. The question is whether the value outweighs that produced by other uses of that time, or if that values comes with less obvious negatives.

Welcome to science. If you think this stuff is obvious and not in need of rigorous evaluation, then you must be new here.

I mean, I have no issue with someone wanting to study this. But the idea that "science" is going to come up with a uniform and stable answer about how homework balances against other uses of time for every kid ... is pretty unlikely, if not impossible. In the interim, it seems like we need to rely on some common sense and experienced teachers, and an understanding of how our kids learn. As well, the idea that we should cancel homework until this mythical scientific consensus emerges is just a bit problematic. For now, it seems clear to my that my MS kids needs some homework to learn math. Is that really that controversial?

I'll try not to further belabor this point, although that's not a strength of mine.

It is not about homework being detrimental for all kids. Students don't receive individually tailored lesson plans; instead, teachers have to try to assign work appropriate towards something like the bulk of the class.

In general, education needs to be viewed as a lifelong (or, at least into one's 20's) marathon and not a sprint. What hath MoCo gotten for their push to teach all kids to read in Kindergarten? Nothing. It created stress with no discernible benefit other than placating parents who wanted to see "evidence" that their children were learning. If you put a kid who learns to read at three next to one who learns at 6.5, at age 8 they're at the same place with decent teaching. (Doesn't Finland not even teach basics until something like 6?)

We are all type-A up here, so we should be able to relate to the notion of burnout. Many of us probably played a sport to studied a topic very intensively only to burn out prematurely and not reach our full potential with it. We need to be mindful of doing that to children just because we want to see evidence of progress.

I'm guessing -- purely guessing here -- that drilling addition and multiplication facts into kids backfires as often as it succeeds. To be sure, fast facts are essential and students need to master them. But they're not math. They're boring, rote calculations. Perhaps kids eventually see this too and grow to dislike this "math." Again guessing, my guess is that the best way to teach fast facts is through a short but dedicated push to get the kids to learn them and then move on quickly and without going back to them except irregularly. Make fast facts a game, not homework, and have kids really try to keep pushing their score until they never have to think about it again.

[Anonymous]

When I read "no homework," I think "let's squeeze the middle class as tight as we can."
No homework because it wouldn't be fair to poorer families who don't have capacity/capability to support their child at home.
No homework because it dilutes too much the advantages to upper class families from costly tutoring and college hooks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I read "no homework," I think "let's squeeze the middle class as tight as we can."
No homework because it wouldn't be fair to poorer families who don't have capacity/capability to support their child at home.
No homework because it dilutes too much the advantages to upper class families from costly tutoring and college hooks.

Also: you're welcome for the free nugget of wisdom that didn't cost $300K to the Brookings Institute. I'm available for speaking engagements and reports co-authoring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I read "no homework," I think "let's squeeze the middle class as tight as we can."
No homework because it wouldn't be fair to poorer families who don't have capacity/capability to support their child at home.
No homework because it dilutes too much the advantages to upper class families from costly tutoring and college hooks.

Also: you're welcome for the free nugget of wisdom that didn't cost $300K to the Brookings Institute. I'm available for speaking engagements and reports co-authoring.

FWIW, I'm the poster who is broadly speaking against homework. I'm a rich parent from an in-boundary to Hardy/Macarthur school. I don't harbor white guilt over what I have. I vehemently dislike this no consequences / truth is one's lived experiences bullcrap being peddled in the city and country. (No, I detest Trumpism too, but I also can't stand that it's still a force because of these sentiments.) I'm not a fan of degrading achievements by giving a ribbon to every participant.

So, you may read "no homework advocacy" as "not fair to poor families," but there is no such motivation for my views.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I read "no homework," I think "let's squeeze the middle class as tight as we can."
No homework because it wouldn't be fair to poorer families who don't have capacity/capability to support their child at home.
No homework because it dilutes too much the advantages to upper class families from costly tutoring and college hooks.

Also: you're welcome for the free nugget of wisdom that didn't cost $300K to the Brookings Institute. I'm available for speaking engagements and reports co-authoring.

FWIW, I'm the poster who is broadly speaking against homework. I'm a rich parent from an in-boundary to Hardy/Macarthur school. I don't harbor white guilt over what I have. I vehemently dislike this no consequences / truth is one's lived experiences bullcrap being peddled in the city and country. (No, I detest Trumpism too, but I also can't stand that it's still a force because of these sentiments.) I'm not a fan of degrading achievements by giving a ribbon to every participant.

So, you may read "no homework advocacy" as "not fair to poor families," but there is no such motivation for my views.

Oh hi rich mom, no I don't read "not fair to poor families" in your no-homework advocacy but "so inconvenient, when my kids would otherwise stay at the top regardless of wether they work hard or even at all."

[Anonymous]

*whether.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I read "no homework," I think "let's squeeze the middle class as tight as we can."
No homework because it wouldn't be fair to poorer families who don't have capacity/capability to support their child at home.
No homework because it dilutes too much the advantages to upper class families from costly tutoring and college hooks.

Also: you're welcome for the free nugget of wisdom that didn't cost $300K to the Brookings Institute. I'm available for speaking engagements and reports co-authoring.

FWIW, I'm the poster who is broadly speaking against homework. I'm a rich parent from an in-boundary to Hardy/Macarthur school. I don't harbor white guilt over what I have. I vehemently dislike this no consequences / truth is one's lived experiences bullcrap being peddled in the city and country. (No, I detest Trumpism too, but I also can't stand that it's still a force because of these sentiments.) I'm not a fan of degrading achievements by giving a ribbon to every participant.

So, you may read "no homework advocacy" as "not fair to poor families," but there is no such motivation for my views.

Oh hi rich mom, no I don't read "not fair to poor families" in your no-homework advocacy but "so inconvenient, when my kids would otherwise stay at the top regardless of wether they work hard or even at all."

That's on you. I've been very clear about why I suspect (and recall from vague recollection) that homework is detrimental. In not a single place was my motivation of "inconvenience" even hinted at. That's because it isn't my motivation. I've been abundantly clear on why I suspect homework is detrimental.

Go on, though, keep reading what you want to see and vilifying others. Go right ahead; it's a mark of true maturity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I read "no homework," I think "let's squeeze the middle class as tight as we can."
No homework because it wouldn't be fair to poorer families who don't have capacity/capability to support their child at home.
No homework because it dilutes too much the advantages to upper class families from costly tutoring and college hooks.

Also: you're welcome for the free nugget of wisdom that didn't cost $300K to the Brookings Institute. I'm available for speaking engagements and reports co-authoring.

FWIW, I'm the poster who is broadly speaking against homework. I'm a rich parent from an in-boundary to Hardy/Macarthur school. I don't harbor white guilt over what I have. I vehemently dislike this no consequences / truth is one's lived experiences bullcrap being peddled in the city and country. (No, I detest Trumpism too, but I also can't stand that it's still a force because of these sentiments.) I'm not a fan of degrading achievements by giving a ribbon to every participant.

So, you may read "no homework advocacy" as "not fair to poor families," but there is no such motivation for my views.

Oh hi rich mom, no I don't read "not fair to poor families" in your no-homework advocacy but "so inconvenient, when my kids would otherwise stay at the top regardless of wether they work hard or even at all."

That's on you. I've been very clear about why I suspect (and recall from vague recollection) that homework is detrimental. In not a single place was my motivation of "inconvenience" even hinted at. That's because it isn't my motivation. I've been abundantly clear on why I suspect homework is detrimental.

Go on, though, keep reading what you want to see and vilifying others. Go right ahead; it's a mark of true maturity.

Certainly, thanks for your permission. I understand that you are abundantly clear on what you suspect from vague recollection that doing homework is harmful to your rich kids, but you are no fan of handing trophies to all participants because it degrades achievements. LOL. Rich gatekeeping AND lazy SAHM chatGTP bot has entered the forum. forgive my lack of maturity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I read "no homework," I think "let's squeeze the middle class as tight as we can."
No homework because it wouldn't be fair to poorer families who don't have capacity/capability to support their child at home.
No homework because it dilutes too much the advantages to upper class families from costly tutoring and college hooks.

Also: you're welcome for the free nugget of wisdom that didn't cost $300K to the Brookings Institute. I'm available for speaking engagements and reports co-authoring.

FWIW, I'm the poster who is broadly speaking against homework. I'm a rich parent from an in-boundary to Hardy/Macarthur school. I don't harbor white guilt over what I have. I vehemently dislike this no consequences / truth is one's lived experiences bullcrap being peddled in the city and country. (No, I detest Trumpism too, but I also can't stand that it's still a force because of these sentiments.) I'm not a fan of degrading achievements by giving a ribbon to every participant.

So, you may read "no homework advocacy" as "not fair to poor families," but there is no such motivation for my views.

Oh hi rich mom, no I don't read "not fair to poor families" in your no-homework advocacy but "so inconvenient, when my kids would otherwise stay at the top regardless of wether they work hard or even at all."

That's on you. I've been very clear about why I suspect (and recall from vague recollection) that homework is detrimental. In not a single place was my motivation of "inconvenience" even hinted at. That's because it isn't my motivation. I've been abundantly clear on why I suspect homework is detrimental.

Go on, though, keep reading what you want to see and vilifying others. Go right ahead; it's a mark of true maturity.

Certainly, thanks for your permission. I understand that you are abundantly clear on what you suspect from vague recollection that doing homework is harmful to your rich kids, but you are no fan of handing trophies to all participants because it degrades achievements. LOL. Rich gatekeeping AND lazy SAHM chatGTP bot has entered the forum. forgive my lack of maturity.

Forgiven. Your emotional maturity appears to match your intellectual maturity. Keep enjoying those smug and baseless soundbites about hoarding, gatekeeping and whatnot. It's gotten you where you are today -- ignorance mired in spite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look up opportunity cost. Homework can (and probably does) have value. The question is whether the value outweighs that produced by other uses of that time, or if that values comes with less obvious negatives.

Welcome to science. If you think this stuff is obvious and not in need of rigorous evaluation, then you must be new here.

I mean, I have no issue with someone wanting to study this. But the idea that "science" is going to come up with a uniform and stable answer about how homework balances against other uses of time for every kid ... is pretty unlikely, if not impossible. In the interim, it seems like we need to rely on some common sense and experienced teachers, and an understanding of how our kids learn. As well, the idea that we should cancel homework until this mythical scientific consensus emerges is just a bit problematic. For now, it seems clear to my that my MS kids needs some homework to learn math. Is that really that controversial?

I'll try not to further belabor this point, although that's not a strength of mine.

It is not about homework being detrimental for all kids. Students don't receive individually tailored lesson plans; instead, teachers have to try to assign work appropriate towards something like the bulk of the class.

In general, education needs to be viewed as a lifelong (or, at least into one's 20's) marathon and not a sprint. What hath MoCo gotten for their push to teach all kids to read in Kindergarten? Nothing. It created stress with no discernible benefit other than placating parents who wanted to see "evidence" that their children were learning. If you put a kid who learns to read at three next to one who learns at 6.5, at age 8 they're at the same place with decent teaching. (Doesn't Finland not even teach basics until something like 6?)

We are all type-A up here, so we should be able to relate to the notion of burnout. Many of us probably played a sport to studied a topic very intensively only to burn out prematurely and not reach our full potential with it. We need to be mindful of doing that to children just because we want to see evidence of progress.

I'm guessing -- purely guessing here -- that drilling addition and multiplication facts into kids backfires as often as it succeeds. To be sure, fast facts are essential and students need to master them. But they're not math. They're boring, rote calculations. Perhaps kids eventually see this too and grow to dislike this "math." Again guessing, my guess is that the best way to teach fast facts is through a short but dedicated push to get the kids to learn them and then move on quickly and without going back to them except irregularly. Make fast facts a game, not homework, and have kids really try to keep pushing their score until they never have to think about it again.

I’m talking about algebra and beyond, not second grade math facts. In every other area of human endeavor, we accept that practice is necessary for progress. I’m honestly confused why people would think that somehow no longer applies to math?