Importance of classmates being at grade levels for reading/math

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is maybe small in the scheme of things but socially somewhat disruptive for the kids who stay for 5th grade that Latin and Basis have 5th grade as their entry year. It comes with long-time friends/classmates saying the in-bound middle school is not very good etc. (because those kids also have complicated feelings about leaving early). This is not just at Brent and Maury.

I’m sure you’re correct, but it still serves the greater good for the students from the weaker elementary schools to get to a strong middle school as early as possible. Think about what you’re arguing for and who it would hurt.

But it makes the classes of the “left behind” kids weaker and there are way more of those and they tend to be worse off on average (eg, includes parents not playing the lottery because they don’t care or don’t know about it). Equity doesn’t cut the way you think it does here even if we’re talking non-Hill schools.

[Anonymous]

There is no justification for DCPSes and Cjarters starting middle school in different years. ESes are better on average than MSes, so this idea that we need to get the kids out to MSes faster is completely inane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We live in DC (Capitol Hill area) and are the parents of a 15 month old. We won't be able to enter the PK3 lottery until 2025, so this is still some time off for us, but the big question that I have been wondering about as we look at DC public schools and decide whether we should stay or move to the suburbs is this--

How much does it really matter what percentage of a school's students are at grade level for reading/math?

I ask because I noticed that even the better schools in DC have large percentages of students not at grade level. We are in-bound to Ludlow-Taylor which has maybe 40-60% at grade level. Nearby Maury seems to be at about 75% I might be off somewhat with the precise percentages but the point is that these are not the 90-95%+ figures at a number of schools in the suburbs.

I've taught, though only at the college level, and even then it was pretty difficult for me to manage dealing with a class that not had obviously bright students but also students who obviously lacked the foundation to be in college (and mixing them together wasn't good for anyone). I know primary/secondary education is not college. I know that tracking is bad for students who are then stuck in the lower tracks (and in my own experience attending a racially mixed school district in suburban NJ, the higher tracks were almost all white while the lower tracks were almost all minorities, which was also not good).

I've also seen various articles/studies saying that it doesn't really matter where one goes to college. Taking my home state of NJ, there was once a study showing that controlling for SAT scores, etc., folks who went to Rutgers earned just as much as those who went to Princeton. I wonder if the same is true for elementary schools through high schools generally (controlling for all factors that schools can't control such as socioeconomic factors, the parents' degree of education, etc., etc.).

Putting my question again--how much is it going to matter if my child goes to a school in DC where say 50% are at grade level vs. a school in the suburbs where 95% are at grade level?

I know socioeconomic factors is the big elephant in the room, and I should also mention that in addition to having our child having solid academics, we also want him to learn from a wide diversity of folks from all sorts of backgrounds (he is himself a mixed kid, and his mother is an immigrant).

Thanks for any thoughts/comments you can share!

Not sure if this is responsive, but it’s been our experience in DCPS. Here goes. If your child is very bright, DCPS will provide resources to accelerate your child. If your child is behind, DCPS will provide resources to try and catch them up. But if your child is sort of in the middle, they just sort of fly in the back of coach. There will be little attempt to get them caught up to the advanced kids. They just sort of get moved along.

[Anonymous]

it still serves the greater good for the students from the weaker elementary schools to get to a strong middle school as early as possible. Think about what you’re arguing for and who it would hurt.

I think it's more complicated than that. Not everyone in a weaker elementary school is able to lottery into a Latin 2 or Basis or some other charter. So, maybe the kids who are able to get into Latin 2 or Basis are better off, but the kids left behind aren't. And in some of the weaker schools, some of the kids are trying to lottery into schools that are feeders for Stuart Hobson or another middle school because it's a better middle school than their IB options. So I suspect that the 5th grade cohort left behind at schools that have worse middle school options is WORSE off than they would be if everyone started middle school in 6th. IOW, you may benefit some kids by letting them start a better school in 5th rather than 6th, but you're hurting others who aren't given that option.

Add in the fact that some of the weaker schools are Title one so after school care is free or dirt cheap. If your 5th grader gets into Maury and your family makes $60,000 or more, after school is $325 a month the last I checked. So, what happens is these kids leave school on their own and walk or navigate public transportation to get home where they are latch key kids. DCPS won't let a first grader leave school without being picked up by a responsible adult. But once you are 9 or 10, depending on the school, you can. At least some of the families that let their kids do this aren't thrilled about it but they see it as their only option if they want a decent middle school the following year. I think at least some would keep their kids in their neighborhood schools with free aftercare for another year if they didn't feel doing so hurt their chances of getting into a better middle school.

If both charters and DCPS started middle school the same year, MC parents would make a real choice between their DCPS middle school and the charters. But now, a lot of parents think well...if I pick my IB DCPS middle school and it doesn't work out my only options are private or moving. But if my kid does get into Latin or Basis or ITS, I always have the option of sending him to my IB DCPS school if it doesn't work out. So, I think most people who have the charter option take it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is maybe small in the scheme of things but socially somewhat disruptive for the kids who stay for 5th grade that Latin and Basis have 5th grade as their entry year. It comes with long-time friends/classmates saying the in-bound middle school is not very good etc. (because those kids also have complicated feelings about leaving early). This is not just at Brent and Maury.

I’m sure you’re correct, but it still serves the greater good for the students from the weaker elementary schools to get to a strong middle school as early as possible. Think about what you’re arguing for and who it would hurt.

But it makes the classes of the “left behind” kids weaker and there are way more of those and they tend to be worse off on average (eg, includes parents not playing the lottery because they don’t care or don’t know about it). Equity doesn’t cut the way you think it does here even if we’re talking non-Hill schools.

Classic DC education strategy for at least the last 10-12 years: close the the achievement gap by dragging the top down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

it still serves the greater good for the students from the weaker elementary schools to get to a strong middle school as early as possible. Think about what you’re arguing for and who it would hurt.

I think it's more complicated than that. Not everyone in a weaker elementary school is able to lottery into a Latin 2 or Basis or some other charter. So, maybe the kids who are able to get into Latin 2 or Basis are better off, but the kids left behind aren't. And in some of the weaker schools, some of the kids are trying to lottery into schools that are feeders for Stuart Hobson or another middle school because it's a better middle school than their IB options. So I suspect that the 5th grade cohort left behind at schools that have worse middle school options is WORSE off than they would be if everyone started middle school in 6th. IOW, you may benefit some kids by letting them start a better school in 5th rather than 6th, but you're hurting others who aren't given that option.

Add in the fact that some of the weaker schools are Title one so after school care is free or dirt cheap. If your 5th grader gets into Maury and your family makes $60,000 or more, after school is $325 a month the last I checked. So, what happens is these kids leave school on their own and walk or navigate public transportation to get home where they are latch key kids. DCPS won't let a first grader leave school without being picked up by a responsible adult. But once you are 9 or 10, depending on the school, you can. At least some of the families that let their kids do this aren't thrilled about it but they see it as their only option if they want a decent middle school the following year. I think at least some would keep their kids in their neighborhood schools with free aftercare for another year if they didn't feel doing so hurt their chances of getting into a better middle school.

If both charters and DCPS started middle school the same year, MC parents would make a real choice between their DCPS middle school and the charters. But now, a lot of parents think well...if I pick my IB DCPS middle school and it doesn't work out my only options are private or moving. But if my kid does get into Latin or Basis or ITS, I always have the option of sending him to my IB DCPS school if it doesn't work out. So, I think most people who have the charter option take it.

This adorable. You are arguing that the desire to keep 5th graders with your kids at Brent isn't your focus. Somehow you now care about "the poors" that attend lousy ES and your argument is that restricting the educational options for the few kids at the top by making them remain is better for the bottom of those classes? You are a truly wonderful human being!

The idea that the kids at the top should be harmed to make the kids in the middle and bottom better/happier is typical DCUM, UMC white faux liberalism at its craven best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is maybe small in the scheme of things but socially somewhat disruptive for the kids who stay for 5th grade that Latin and Basis have 5th grade as their entry year. It comes with long-time friends/classmates saying the in-bound middle school is not very good etc. (because those kids also have complicated feelings about leaving early). This is not just at Brent and Maury.

I’m sure you’re correct, but it still serves the greater good for the students from the weaker elementary schools to get to a strong middle school as early as possible. Think about what you’re arguing for and who it would hurt.

But it makes the classes of the “left behind” kids weaker and there are way more of those and they tend to be worse off on average (eg, includes parents not playing the lottery because they don’t care or don’t know about it). Equity doesn’t cut the way you think it does here even if we’re talking non-Hill schools.

Classic DC education strategy for at least the last 10-12 years: close the the achievement gap by dragging the top down.

Classic DC education strategy for at least the last 10-12 years: close the the achievement gap by dragging the top down. Unless it is my kid's school, then I want true honors classes and differentiation.

[Fixed it for you]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is maybe small in the scheme of things but socially somewhat disruptive for the kids who stay for 5th grade that Latin and Basis have 5th grade as their entry year. It comes with long-time friends/classmates saying the in-bound middle school is not very good etc. (because those kids also have complicated feelings about leaving early). This is not just at Brent and Maury.

I’m sure you’re correct, but it still serves the greater good for the students from the weaker elementary schools to get to a strong middle school as early as possible. Think about what you’re arguing for and who it would hurt.

But it makes the classes of the “left behind” kids weaker and there are way more of those and they tend to be worse off on average (eg, includes parents not playing the lottery because they don’t care or don’t know about it). Equity doesn’t cut the way you think it does here even if we’re talking non-Hill schools.

Classic DC education strategy for at least the last 10-12 years: close the the achievement gap by dragging the top down.

Classic DC education strategy for at least the last 10-12 years: close the the achievement gap by dragging the top down. Unless it is my kid's school, then I want true honors classes and differentiation.

[Fixed it for you]

I have no idea what you’re talking about and doesn’t fit my situation at all. It’s like you’re aware of internet lingo but don’t understand how it works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is maybe small in the scheme of things but socially somewhat disruptive for the kids who stay for 5th grade that Latin and Basis have 5th grade as their entry year. It comes with long-time friends/classmates saying the in-bound middle school is not very good etc. (because those kids also have complicated feelings about leaving early). This is not just at Brent and Maury.

I’m sure you’re correct, but it still serves the greater good for the students from the weaker elementary schools to get to a strong middle school as early as possible. Think about what you’re arguing for and who it would hurt.

But it makes the classes of the “left behind” kids weaker and there are way more of those and they tend to be worse off on average (eg, includes parents not playing the lottery because they don’t care or don’t know about it). Equity doesn’t cut the way you think it does here even if we’re talking non-Hill schools.

Classic DC education strategy for at least the last 10-12 years: close the the achievement gap by dragging the top down.

Classic DC education strategy for at least the last 10-12 years: close the the achievement gap by dragging the top down. Unless it is my kid's school, then I want true honors classes and differentiation.

[Fixed it for you]

I have no idea what you’re talking about and doesn’t fit my situation at all. It’s like you’re aware of internet lingo but don’t understand how it works.

I am embarrassed for you. The point was to add onto what the person posted. Their post called BS that the solution in DC seems to be to lower expectations and bring the top down to "close the gap". I doubled down and pointed out that is true, except when the liberal white wokemonsters are talking about their own kids. Then it's all about differentiation.

You seem not smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is maybe small in the scheme of things but socially somewhat disruptive for the kids who stay for 5th grade that Latin and Basis have 5th grade as their entry year. It comes with long-time friends/classmates saying the in-bound middle school is not very good etc. (because those kids also have complicated feelings about leaving early). This is not just at Brent and Maury.

I’m sure you’re correct, but it still serves the greater good for the students from the weaker elementary schools to get to a strong middle school as early as possible. Think about what you’re arguing for and who it would hurt.

But it makes the classes of the “left behind” kids weaker and there are way more of those and they tend to be worse off on average (eg, includes parents not playing the lottery because they don’t care or don’t know about it). Equity doesn’t cut the way you think it does here even if we’re talking non-Hill schools.

Classic DC education strategy for at least the last 10-12 years: close the the achievement gap by dragging the top down.

Classic DC education strategy for at least the last 10-12 years: close the the achievement gap by dragging the top down. Unless it is my kid's school, then I want true honors classes and differentiation.

[Fixed it for you]

I have no idea what you’re talking about and doesn’t fit my situation at all. It’s like you’re aware of internet lingo but don’t understand how it works.

I am embarrassed for you. The point was to add onto what the person posted. Their post called BS that the solution in DC seems to be to lower expectations and bring the top down to "close the gap". I doubled down and pointed out that is true, except when the liberal white wokemonsters are talking about their own kids. Then it's all about differentiation.

You seem not smart.

Be kind, they may be a product of DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Lol. This thread is off the rails. If you subscribe to the belief that DCPS is absurdly awful and charter schools are the savior, then maybe the argument to move more students to charter schools in 5th rather than 6th makes sense. The argument otherwise collapses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

it still serves the greater good for the students from the weaker elementary schools to get to a strong middle school as early as possible. Think about what you’re arguing for and who it would hurt.

I think it's more complicated than that. Not everyone in a weaker elementary school is able to lottery into a Latin 2 or Basis or some other charter. So, maybe the kids who are able to get into Latin 2 or Basis are better off, but the kids left behind aren't. And in some of the weaker schools, some of the kids are trying to lottery into schools that are feeders for Stuart Hobson or another middle school because it's a better middle school than their IB options. So I suspect that the 5th grade cohort left behind at schools that have worse middle school options is WORSE off than they would be if everyone started middle school in 6th. IOW, you may benefit some kids by letting them start a better school in 5th rather than 6th, but you're hurting others who aren't given that option.

Add in the fact that some of the weaker schools are Title one so after school care is free or dirt cheap. If your 5th grader gets into Maury and your family makes $60,000 or more, after school is $325 a month the last I checked. So, what happens is these kids leave school on their own and walk or navigate public transportation to get home where they are latch key kids. DCPS won't let a first grader leave school without being picked up by a responsible adult. But once you are 9 or 10, depending on the school, you can. At least some of the families that let their kids do this aren't thrilled about it but they see it as their only option if they want a decent middle school the following year. I think at least some would keep their kids in their neighborhood schools with free aftercare for another year if they didn't feel doing so hurt their chances of getting into a better middle school.

If both charters and DCPS started middle school the same year, MC parents would make a real choice between their DCPS middle school and the charters. But now, a lot of parents think well...if I pick my IB DCPS middle school and it doesn't work out my only options are private or moving. But if my kid does get into Latin or Basis or ITS, I always have the option of sending him to my IB DCPS school if it doesn't work out. So, I think most people who have the charter option take it.

This adorable. You are arguing that the desire to keep 5th graders with your kids at Brent isn't your focus. Somehow you now care about "the poors" that attend lousy ES and your argument is that restricting the educational options for the few kids at the top by making them remain is better for the bottom of those classes? You are a truly wonderful human being!

The idea that the kids at the top should be harmed to make the kids in the middle and bottom better/happier is typical DCUM, UMC white faux liberalism at its craven best.

Kids who get into Latin or Basis aren't "the top." Sorry but your kid winning the literal lottery doesn't make them better than anyone else. So, yes, when considering if a policy hurts 80% of kids while helping 20% of kids, we shouldn't *only* be focused on the 20%. Especially when the 20% are chosen *at random* after excluding a handful of kids who are most likely to be failed by the system anyway (e.g., kids whose parents don't play the lottery).

[Anonymous]

You also have the additional issue that Latin and Basis are both only approximately 10% at risk students. This is not a perfect statistic but it is one that is tracked and available. These schools mostly siphon off UMC children.

[Anonymous]

It’s not going to change, so cry about more.

[Anonymous]

FWIW, my definitely-ahead-of-grade-level kid was not challenged in DCPS elementary.