BASIS DC will seek to expand to include K to 4th grade

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like a great idea. I wish this had been around when my own Black children were in elementary school.

What part of this do you not understand? DCUM believes that the only way to ensure equity is to make it so we focus on a small number of at risk kids. Sure, the result is your hard working black kid and her friends won't have access to quality or rigor, but you can't do performative equity if you care about actually educating black kids.

So true. The Black families that care with resources get out of DCPS. The Black families that care without resources are hung out to dry.

BASIS is only 20% Black students, why?

Don’t play dumb. Because DCPS is so terrible for most black kids that few are prepared for Basis. 20% actually seems fairly on the mark. If you look at most MS, even deeply troubled ones, there are usually around 10-20% who can get a 4 on PARCC ELA. That’s the 20% enrolling in Basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

Because we're talking about an elementary school where the developmental and physical gaps can be really big. If a kid is held back more than once, that's a lot. If it were your kid, would you think this is a good plan? Or would you think the school is unwilling to meet their needs in a manner you consider appropriate? It's fine to say "BASIS isn't to everyone's taste" but to offer parents a choice of leaving or accepting an inappropriate class year placement is effectively pushing them out

Fine, that’s the parent’s choice to leave because the school is a poor fit. The other choice would be to request a private placement - many charters do this. But you just seem to be in denial about the fact that a) Basis offers a rigorous curriculum and b) not all kids will be able to handle it. For some kids, no amount of services would help. So what you really do seem to be saying is that they are entitled to a separate curriculum.

No, it's not that at all. It's that BASIS is opting for a stigmatizing and developmentally inappropriate retention policy, rather than offering the kinds of supports that plenty of well-performing schools do, and they're doing it because they know it will cause people to "choose" to leave. If you believe what you're saying, I have a bridge to sell you.

I’ll agree with the PP who said the actually stigmatizing and developmentally inappropriate thing is the DCPS schools with 75%-99% of kids failing PARCC.

I swear, this country is absolutely in a suicide pact with itself in coming up with ways to sabotage actual progress

But what would you want if your child were significantly behind academically? I think you would want a good school, an age-appropriate classroom, and IEP support. Right? That's not what BASIS is offering, because they want people to leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

Because we're talking about an elementary school where the developmental and physical gaps can be really big. If a kid is held back more than once, that's a lot. If it were your kid, would you think this is a good plan? Or would you think the school is unwilling to meet their needs in a manner you consider appropriate? It's fine to say "BASIS isn't to everyone's taste" but to offer parents a choice of leaving or accepting an inappropriate class year placement is effectively pushing them out

No. It is giving them a choice. You seem like one of those entitled people who thinks a choice is only a choice if it is what you want. That's not how it works. Stay under our rules, or leave. Choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

Because we're talking about an elementary school where the developmental and physical gaps can be really big. If a kid is held back more than once, that's a lot. If it were your kid, would you think this is a good plan? Or would you think the school is unwilling to meet their needs in a manner you consider appropriate? It's fine to say "BASIS isn't to everyone's taste" but to offer parents a choice of leaving or accepting an inappropriate class year placement is effectively pushing them out

No. It is giving them a choice. You seem like one of those entitled people who thinks a choice is only a choice if it is what you want. That's not how it works. Stay under our rules, or leave. Choice.

Can you describe to me the profile of a child who would benefit from being retained twice in elementary school? What sort of needs and conditions does that help with?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

Because we're talking about an elementary school where the developmental and physical gaps can be really big. If a kid is held back more than once, that's a lot. If it were your kid, would you think this is a good plan? Or would you think the school is unwilling to meet their needs in a manner you consider appropriate? It's fine to say "BASIS isn't to everyone's taste" but to offer parents a choice of leaving or accepting an inappropriate class year placement is effectively pushing them out

Fine, that’s the parent’s choice to leave because the school is a poor fit. The other choice would be to request a private placement - many charters do this. But you just seem to be in denial about the fact that a) Basis offers a rigorous curriculum and b) not all kids will be able to handle it. For some kids, no amount of services would help. So what you really do seem to be saying is that they are entitled to a separate curriculum.

No, it's not that at all. It's that BASIS is opting for a stigmatizing and developmentally inappropriate retention policy, rather than offering the kinds of supports that plenty of well-performing schools do, and they're doing it because they know it will cause people to "choose" to leave. If you believe what you're saying, I have a bridge to sell you.

I’ll agree with the PP who said the actually stigmatizing and developmentally inappropriate thing is the DCPS schools with 75%-99% of kids failing PARCC.

I swear, this country is absolutely in a suicide pact with itself in coming up with ways to sabotage actual progress

But what would you want if your child were significantly behind academically? I think you would want a good school, an age-appropriate classroom, and IEP support. Right? That's not what BASIS is offering, because they want people to leave.

Why do you assume every kid behind grade level, or truant, or disruptive is on an IEP? When did we land at a place where no one is responsible for their own actions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

Because we're talking about an elementary school where the developmental and physical gaps can be really big. If a kid is held back more than once, that's a lot. If it were your kid, would you think this is a good plan? Or would you think the school is unwilling to meet their needs in a manner you consider appropriate? It's fine to say "BASIS isn't to everyone's taste" but to offer parents a choice of leaving or accepting an inappropriate class year placement is effectively pushing them out

Fine, that’s the parent’s choice to leave because the school is a poor fit. The other choice would be to request a private placement - many charters do this. But you just seem to be in denial about the fact that a) Basis offers a rigorous curriculum and b) not all kids will be able to handle it. For some kids, no amount of services would help. So what you really do seem to be saying is that they are entitled to a separate curriculum.

No, it's not that at all. It's that BASIS is opting for a stigmatizing and developmentally inappropriate retention policy, rather than offering the kinds of supports that plenty of well-performing schools do, and they're doing it because they know it will cause people to "choose" to leave. If you believe what you're saying, I have a bridge to sell you.

I’ll agree with the PP who said the actually stigmatizing and developmentally inappropriate thing is the DCPS schools with 75%-99% of kids failing PARCC.

I swear, this country is absolutely in a suicide pact with itself in coming up with ways to sabotage actual progress

But what would you want if your child were significantly behind academically? I think you would want a good school, an age-appropriate classroom, and IEP support. Right? That's not what BASIS is offering, because they want people to leave.

If your kid is significantly behind academically then they are not going to be promoted at Basis. That’s how the school works. I would want my kid placed elsewhere where they could succeed. That’s what private placements are for. I wouldn’t expect to enroll my IEP kid in all AP classes unless they were ok with failing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

Because we're talking about an elementary school where the developmental and physical gaps can be really big. If a kid is held back more than once, that's a lot. If it were your kid, would you think this is a good plan? Or would you think the school is unwilling to meet their needs in a manner you consider appropriate? It's fine to say "BASIS isn't to everyone's taste" but to offer parents a choice of leaving or accepting an inappropriate class year placement is effectively pushing them out

I'll play. If my kid was to be held back 2x before 4th grade I would realize that the traditional school my kid was in was not going to prepare them to ever be independent or functioning members of society. I would want my kid in a school dedicated to getting them back on track.

[Anonymous]

BASIS can’t backfill like the Arizona BASIS charters, because the ones there administer placement exams at entry, and they can do have kids repeat as many as 2-3 grades upon enrolling in the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

BASIS DC is notorious for not providing IDEA-required supports for kids who could be successful there. I’d like to see them implement these improvements they mentioned before they get a chance to expand and then, oops! forget about those kids. Again.

And they should be required to fill open seats.

-1

Way too hard to catch kids up in the upper grades when DCPS is doing the exact opposite of BASIS: watering down the curriculum, solely focusing on closing the achievement gap, refusing to offer true honors classes, etc.

Way too easy to dismiss kids who could do the work. What’s your answer for kids coming in from other school districts? No chance at BASIS for you!

It is people like you who won't let them give placement tests. You made the bed. Now STFU and sleep in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BASIS can’t backfill like the Arizona BASIS charters, because the ones there administer placement exams at entry, and they can do have kids repeat as many as 2-3 grades upon enrolling in the school.

wow really? they have kids who graduate at 20-21?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

Because we're talking about an elementary school where the developmental and physical gaps can be really big. If a kid is held back more than once, that's a lot. If it were your kid, would you think this is a good plan? Or would you think the school is unwilling to meet their needs in a manner you consider appropriate? It's fine to say "BASIS isn't to everyone's taste" but to offer parents a choice of leaving or accepting an inappropriate class year placement is effectively pushing them out

Fine, that’s the parent’s choice to leave because the school is a poor fit. The other choice would be to request a private placement - many charters do this. But you just seem to be in denial about the fact that a) Basis offers a rigorous curriculum and b) not all kids will be able to handle it. For some kids, no amount of services would help. So what you really do seem to be saying is that they are entitled to a separate curriculum.

No, it's not that at all. It's that BASIS is opting for a stigmatizing and developmentally inappropriate retention policy, rather than offering the kinds of supports that plenty of well-performing schools do, and they're doing it because they know it will cause people to "choose" to leave. If you believe what you're saying, I have a bridge to sell you.

Stigmatizing doesn't mean what you think it means. Having to endure consequences of your actions, inactions and failures isn't stigmatizing. And if it is, TFB. Don't want to be "stigmatized"? Do better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

Because we're talking about an elementary school where the developmental and physical gaps can be really big. If a kid is held back more than once, that's a lot. If it were your kid, would you think this is a good plan? Or would you think the school is unwilling to meet their needs in a manner you consider appropriate? It's fine to say "BASIS isn't to everyone's taste" but to offer parents a choice of leaving or accepting an inappropriate class year placement is effectively pushing them out

Fine, that’s the parent’s choice to leave because the school is a poor fit. The other choice would be to request a private placement - many charters do this. But you just seem to be in denial about the fact that a) Basis offers a rigorous curriculum and b) not all kids will be able to handle it. For some kids, no amount of services would help. So what you really do seem to be saying is that they are entitled to a separate curriculum.

No, it's not that at all. It's that BASIS is opting for a stigmatizing and developmentally inappropriate retention policy, rather than offering the kinds of supports that plenty of well-performing schools do, and they're doing it because they know it will cause people to "choose" to leave. If you believe what you're saying, I have a bridge to sell you.

Stigmatizing doesn't mean what you think it means. Having to endure consequences of your actions, inactions and failures isn't stigmatizing. And if it is, TFB. Don't want to be "stigmatized"? Do better.

That's a mean thing to say about a 7 year old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

Because we're talking about an elementary school where the developmental and physical gaps can be really big. If a kid is held back more than once, that's a lot. If it were your kid, would you think this is a good plan? Or would you think the school is unwilling to meet their needs in a manner you consider appropriate? It's fine to say "BASIS isn't to everyone's taste" but to offer parents a choice of leaving or accepting an inappropriate class year placement is effectively pushing them out

I'll play. If my kid was to be held back 2x before 4th grade I would realize that the traditional school my kid was in was not going to prepare them to ever be independent or functioning members of society. I would want my kid in a school dedicated to getting them back on track.

But BASIS has an obligation to serve the needs of it's students in good faith. Public charters are not allowed to counsel out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

Because we're talking about an elementary school where the developmental and physical gaps can be really big. If a kid is held back more than once, that's a lot. If it were your kid, would you think this is a good plan? Or would you think the school is unwilling to meet their needs in a manner you consider appropriate? It's fine to say "BASIS isn't to everyone's taste" but to offer parents a choice of leaving or accepting an inappropriate class year placement is effectively pushing them out

I'll play. If my kid was to be held back 2x before 4th grade I would realize that the traditional school my kid was in was not going to prepare them to ever be independent or functioning members of society. I would want my kid in a school dedicated to getting them back on track.

But BASIS has an obligation to serve the needs of it's students in good faith. Public charters are not allowed to counsel out.

Regardless of whether this is legally true, it’s what the PCSB believes. They want to prove that charter schools can replace traditional public schools. Basis supporters love to hate DCPS, but Basis needs DCPS to take the students that Basis can’t or won’t educate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

Because we're talking about an elementary school where the developmental and physical gaps can be really big. If a kid is held back more than once, that's a lot. If it were your kid, would you think this is a good plan? Or would you think the school is unwilling to meet their needs in a manner you consider appropriate? It's fine to say "BASIS isn't to everyone's taste" but to offer parents a choice of leaving or accepting an inappropriate class year placement is effectively pushing them out

I'll play. If my kid was to be held back 2x before 4th grade I would realize that the traditional school my kid was in was not going to prepare them to ever be independent or functioning members of society. I would want my kid in a school dedicated to getting them back on track.

But BASIS has an obligation to serve the needs of it's students in good faith. Public charters are not allowed to counsel out.

Regardless of whether this is legally true, it’s what the PCSB believes. They want to prove that charter schools can replace traditional public schools. Basis supporters love to hate DCPS, but Basis needs DCPS to take the students that Basis can’t or won’t educate.

No, they want to stay just under 50% of the student body so that they don't have to take on the responsibilities that DCPS has. So they can keep doing their charter thang and patting themselves on the back for being so excellent while DCPS holds on to the real responsibility.