Are in boundary families leaving Hardy because if MacArthur?

[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.

ha. the Deal principal said this, literally. no homework because it is unfair to poor kids.

[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.

fine let your kid do no homework. mine needs it.

[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.

lol nailed it

AND she would be the type to complain about “prepping” in a school where the kids all go to AOPS so her kids can’t keep up in class.

[Anonymous]

Just going to leave this here for you...https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/teen-suicide-rate-increases-states-look-schools-address-crisis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just going to leave this here for you...https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/teen-suicide-rate-increases-states-look-schools-address-crisis

what does this have to do with anything?

[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.

ha. the Deal principal said this, literally. no homework because it is unfair to poor kids.

LOL! I bet that's the official righteous reason, but the only reason it's being implemented is that it is inconvenient to the rich kids' privilege, whose families think "if we wanted homework, we'd have gone private."

[Anonymous]

I feel sorry for you having to go through life with such a world view. You are a pitiful individual and I only hope your views don’t spread to future generations.

[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.

ha. the Deal principal said this, literally. no homework because it is unfair to poor kids.

LOL! I bet that's the official righteous reason, but the only reason it's being implemented is that it is inconvenient to the rich kids' privilege, whose families think "if we wanted homework, we'd have gone private."

It’s a curious and unfortunate intersection of two bad rationales.

[Anonymous]

Geez. Again I’m the poster who said limited homework - and I meant compared to the privates. Kiddo does have an average of 3-4 hours of math homework and a couple hours of ELA and science each week.

I don’t think doing 3-4 hours each night of homework like many private school kids do is beneficial. Esp for middle school. Compared to more activities or time to be social etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This. But not just math. Science and every other subject as well. How exactly are you going to study history without knowing where countries are or who ruled them or which wars and battles informed what happened next?

I frequently wonder how the hell the 20 and 30 somethings in our office got to be as entitled as they are, and seem so ill equipped to just put their heads down and do the damn work. Reading DCUM helps me to understand how they came to be as they are. As a hiring manager and someone who makes decisions about productivity, promotions, partnerships and (sadly) RIFs I can tell you that you are hurting your children.

[Anonymous]

Once again,,, there IS homework at Hardy in core classes. IXL and other for math.

This spin out discussion about homework is off the rails and irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a terrible idea to feed a whole swath of kids into a niche high school with limited offerings, Yes, a small school with few sports could be good for some kids, but it's not the equivalent of JR, which btw, has lots of challenges right now with teachers not showing up for months at a time, etc. They should let people apply to the new high school but not force people to enroll in a school with limited offerings.

An 800-person high school is not "niche." Education experts actually recommend that size as better for students than the 2000-student behemoths. The issue is providing adequate budget, not that the size is inadequate.

It may not be niche in size but it certainly will be in its offerings. It was inadequate for sports when it was an elementary/middle school for GDS. Read the fact sheet -- basketbal and track/cross country are the only sports. There will be a green club, a chess club, and one or two more, but hardly what JR offers. There's no good transportation to the site -- even in bounds students will be challenged to get there without driving. A terrible site.

These are falsehoods. Further evidence that readers should identify trusted and informed community members and rely solely upon them for information. Too many anonymous actors fueled either by ignorance of mal-intent.

Soccer will also be a varsity sport. The school’s field is loathe enough for practices but it doesn’t meet DCIAA regulations for games, so games will be elsewhere. Those involved are pushing for games across the street at GW Mt Vernon.

There are probably/possibly other sports too, but I don’t know the list off-hand. But I do recognize lies without resort to my records.

I just watched the principal say that soccer will NOT be a varsity sport.

[Anonymous]

My understanding is it won’t be this year because they only will have mostly 9th graders. I’d expect it to be a varsity sport by year 3, year 4 at the latest. And if they aren’t offering soccer right away students can play for other DCPS teams in the interim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a terrible idea to feed a whole swath of kids into a niche high school with limited offerings, Yes, a small school with few sports could be good for some kids, but it's not the equivalent of JR, which btw, has lots of challenges right now with teachers not showing up for months at a time, etc. They should let people apply to the new high school but not force people to enroll in a school with limited offerings.

An 800-person high school is not "niche." Education experts actually recommend that size as better for students than the 2000-student behemoths. The issue is providing adequate budget, not that the size is inadequate.

It may not be niche in size but it certainly will be in its offerings. It was inadequate for sports when it was an elementary/middle school for GDS. Read the fact sheet -- basketbal and track/cross country are the only sports. There will be a green club, a chess club, and one or two more, but hardly what JR offers. There's no good transportation to the site -- even in bounds students will be challenged to get there without driving. A terrible site.

These are falsehoods. Further evidence that readers should identify trusted and informed community members and rely solely upon them for information. Too many anonymous actors fueled either by ignorance of mal-intent.

Soccer will also be a varsity sport. The school’s field is loathe enough for practices but it doesn’t meet DCIAA regulations for games, so games will be elsewhere. Those involved are pushing for games across the street at GW Mt Vernon.

There are probably/possibly other sports too, but I don’t know the list off-hand. But I do recognize lies without resort to my records.

I just watched the principal say that soccer will NOT be a varsity sport.

This year. It won’t be a varsity sport this year. This is due to there only be 250 kids, max and in total at the school in the first year.

No one asked if it will already be in year 2, but the principal replied that the sport will be varsity and that the only impediment is the immediate size of the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is it won’t be this year because they only will have mostly 9th graders. I’d expect it to be a varsity sport by year 3, year 4 at the latest. And if they aren’t offering soccer right away students can play for other DCPS teams in the interim.

If they can get to the other schools, on their own, in time for practice. DCPS will not help with transportation. They need to step it up.