If ATS is so popular, why not create two of them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Old APS parent here. Knowing what I know now, I absolutely would have applied to send my kids to ATS (we did not even lottery, though I did learn about it at kindergarten info night).

How I think of it is, ATS runs like schools ran when I was a kid. Traditional. Other APS schools are trying new models that generally are not proven and not as effective.

We switched to Catholic during Covid which also runs a more traditional model, but which you pay for out of pocket.

I do think we should add another ATS. The question is where to put it, because you have to take offline an existing ES, and that's a nightmare like all boundary stuff is.

But as an Arlington taxpayer, I would love to see all our schools swinging back toward a more traditional learning model.

I also completely agree on the importance of having one teacher who really gets to know your kid and be invested in them. I hated when our APS elem started rotating kids in 4th grade and all those connections got broken.

Just want to chime in as an ATS parent. What distinguishes ATS is the following:

- high expectations when it comes to academics
- high expectations when it comes to behavior
- direct interaction as opposed to inquiry based learning (this is the most important difference in my opinion)
- focus on phonics in the earlier grades
- curriculum has always been knowledge based even before the adoption of CKLA
- extremely diverse student body
- no standards based grading in the higher grades
-homework
- arts focus

This all sounds pretty generic, though I'm not familiar with "direct interaction" vs. "inquiry based learning." Again, the main issue I see with ATS, and why we didn't bother trying the lottery, is that they can't really identify what they're doing that is so special. Anyone at ATS who hasn't also been at another school (most of ATS) has only experienced ATS and been told it is extra special.

That’s because you don’t know the difference between inquiry based learning and direct instruction. They are completely different methods of teaching. The delivery is different. The teacher’s role is different. The students roles’ are different. The way students interact with each other are different. It’s a completely different way to run a classroom. The differences are vast. Just because the difference is too abstract for you to understand doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I suggest you learn about the different methods of instruction. You can start with Natalie Wexler.

Your entire response just repeats the assertion that "direct interaction" and "inquiry based learning" are different without explaining HOW they are different. I'll google Natalie Wexler and try to educate myself, but repeating a claim without backing it up doesn't make it more convincing. Also, even if this one thing is the true difference, why burry that with all the other generic stuff? No wonder so many of us are confused.

DP Direct instruction (not interaction) is a more traditional approach whereby the teacher provides instruction to the class as a whole, does worked examples, and lays out problems in a scaffolded manner so that students can build a base of knowledge before tackling the next level difficulty problem. Essentially, teachers take a direct role in teaching kids material. With inquiry or discovery learning, the teacher is more a facilitator and students often work together in small groups on material and attempt to figure problems out on their own. Students ask questions of the teacher when they hit an impasse. The teacher does not give them the answer directly but will ask students follow-up questions to guide their thinking toward the answer. Inquiry learning is meant to encourage productive struggle. Since inquiry learning is generally more time consuming than direct instruction, often less content is covered with an inquiry approach. Inquiry learning tends to put more emphasis on thinking process skills and less emphasis on the particular content itself.
Each approach has its advocates. However, inquiry learning is generally more successful when students have a base of knowledge to work with; as such, it may be better suited to experts rather than novices and may be better incorporated in small amounts rather than used exclusively.

NP Thank you for that explanation. I just don't understand why everything is either "this or that" and never something in the middle; or just improving the existing instead of throwing it out and replacing it with something entirely different. So illogical and frustrating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:APS 100% has school choice!!! That is what option schools are! You can lottery into them!

Actual "school choice" is everyone having the ability to choose the school they go to. Limited lotteries for a few programs is not that. A ranked choice system is actually far closer to a "school choice" system because (1) everyone is ranking their preferences and (2) the vast majority of people get their first or second choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As much as this forum talks about ATS, you know they are doing something right. Ha!

Knowing what we know now, I wish instead of the Spanish immersion program, we would have at least tried for the lottery at ATS. C'est la vie!

Same. I wouldn’t do immersion again and we won’t do it for middle school even though that is where it’s supposedly starts to come together for kids . APS needs to be more upfront about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Old APS parent here. Knowing what I know now, I absolutely would have applied to send my kids to ATS (we did not even lottery, though I did learn about it at kindergarten info night).

How I think of it is, ATS runs like schools ran when I was a kid. Traditional. Other APS schools are trying new models that generally are not proven and not as effective.

We switched to Catholic during Covid which also runs a more traditional model, but which you pay for out of pocket.

I do think we should add another ATS. The question is where to put it, because you have to take offline an existing ES, and that's a nightmare like all boundary stuff is.

But as an Arlington taxpayer, I would love to see all our schools swinging back toward a more traditional learning model.

I also completely agree on the importance of having one teacher who really gets to know your kid and be invested in them. I hated when our APS elem started rotating kids in 4th grade and all those connections got broken.

Just want to chime in as an ATS parent. What distinguishes ATS is the following:

- high expectations when it comes to academics
- high expectations when it comes to behavior
- direct interaction as opposed to inquiry based learning (this is the most important difference in my opinion)
- focus on phonics in the earlier grades
- curriculum has always been knowledge based even before the adoption of CKLA
- extremely diverse student body
- no standards based grading in the higher grades
-homework
- arts focus

This all sounds pretty generic, though I'm not familiar with "direct interaction" vs. "inquiry based learning." Again, the main issue I see with ATS, and why we didn't bother trying the lottery, is that they can't really identify what they're doing that is so special. Anyone at ATS who hasn't also been at another school (most of ATS) has only experienced ATS and been told it is extra special.

That’s because you don’t know the difference between inquiry based learning and direct instruction. They are completely different methods of teaching. The delivery is different. The teacher’s role is different. The students roles’ are different. The way students interact with each other are different. It’s a completely different way to run a classroom. The differences are vast. Just because the difference is too abstract for you to understand doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I suggest you learn about the different methods of instruction. You can start with Natalie Wexler.

Your entire response just repeats the assertion that "direct interaction" and "inquiry based learning" are different without explaining HOW they are different. I'll google Natalie Wexler and try to educate myself, but repeating a claim without backing it up doesn't make it more convincing. Also, even if this one thing is the true difference, why burry that with all the other generic stuff? No wonder so many of us are confused.

DP Direct instruction (not interaction) is a more traditional approach whereby the teacher provides instruction to the class as a whole, does worked examples, and lays out problems in a scaffolded manner so that students can build a base of knowledge before tackling the next level difficulty problem. Essentially, teachers take a direct role in teaching kids material. With inquiry or discovery learning, the teacher is more a facilitator and students often work together in small groups on material and attempt to figure problems out on their own. Students ask questions of the teacher when they hit an impasse. The teacher does not give them the answer directly but will ask students follow-up questions to guide their thinking toward the answer. Inquiry learning is meant to encourage productive struggle. Since inquiry learning is generally more time consuming than direct instruction, often less content is covered with an inquiry approach. Inquiry learning tends to put more emphasis on thinking process skills and less emphasis on the particular content itself.
Each approach has its advocates. However, inquiry learning is generally more successful when students have a base of knowledge to work with; as such, it may be better suited to experts rather than novices and may be better incorporated in small amounts rather than used exclusively.

NP Thank you for that explanation. I just don't understand why everything is either "this or that" and never something in the middle; or just improving the existing instead of throwing it out and replacing it with something entirely different. So illogical and frustrating.

Yes. It comes in waves and can differ depending on the subject. Nationally, ELA is moving back toward a more traditional, content-focused approach, while math is moving in the other direction, toward more of an inquiry approach with problem-based learning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Old APS parent here. Knowing what I know now, I absolutely would have applied to send my kids to ATS (we did not even lottery, though I did learn about it at kindergarten info night).

How I think of it is, ATS runs like schools ran when I was a kid. Traditional. Other APS schools are trying new models that generally are not proven and not as effective.

We switched to Catholic during Covid which also runs a more traditional model, but which you pay for out of pocket.

I do think we should add another ATS. The question is where to put it, because you have to take offline an existing ES, and that's a nightmare like all boundary stuff is.

But as an Arlington taxpayer, I would love to see all our schools swinging back toward a more traditional learning model.

I also completely agree on the importance of having one teacher who really gets to know your kid and be invested in them. I hated when our APS elem started rotating kids in 4th grade and all those connections got broken.

Just want to chime in as an ATS parent. What distinguishes ATS is the following:

- high expectations when it comes to academics
- high expectations when it comes to behavior
- direct interaction as opposed to inquiry based learning (this is the most important difference in my opinion)
- focus on phonics in the earlier grades
- curriculum has always been knowledge based even before the adoption of CKLA
- extremely diverse student body
- no standards based grading in the higher grades
-homework
- arts focus

This all sounds pretty generic, though I'm not familiar with "direct interaction" vs. "inquiry based learning." Again, the main issue I see with ATS, and why we didn't bother trying the lottery, is that they can't really identify what they're doing that is so special. Anyone at ATS who hasn't also been at another school (most of ATS) has only experienced ATS and been told it is extra special.

That’s because you don’t know the difference between inquiry based learning and direct instruction. They are completely different methods of teaching. The delivery is different. The teacher’s role is different. The students roles’ are different. The way students interact with each other are different. It’s a completely different way to run a classroom. The differences are vast. Just because the difference is too abstract for you to understand doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I suggest you learn about the different methods of instruction. You can start with Natalie Wexler.

Your entire response just repeats the assertion that "direct interaction" and "inquiry based learning" are different without explaining HOW they are different. I'll google Natalie Wexler and try to educate myself, but repeating a claim without backing it up doesn't make it more convincing. Also, even if this one thing is the true difference, why burry that with all the other generic stuff? No wonder so many of us are confused.

DP Direct instruction (not interaction) is a more traditional approach whereby the teacher provides instruction to the class as a whole, does worked examples, and lays out problems in a scaffolded manner so that students can build a base of knowledge before tackling the next level difficulty problem. Essentially, teachers take a direct role in teaching kids material. With inquiry or discovery learning, the teacher is more a facilitator and students often work together in small groups on material and attempt to figure problems out on their own. Students ask questions of the teacher when they hit an impasse. The teacher does not give them the answer directly but will ask students follow-up questions to guide their thinking toward the answer. Inquiry learning is meant to encourage productive struggle. Since inquiry learning is generally more time consuming than direct instruction, often less content is covered with an inquiry approach. Inquiry learning tends to put more emphasis on thinking process skills and less emphasis on the particular content itself.
Each approach has its advocates. However, inquiry learning is generally more successful when students have a base of knowledge to work with; as such, it may be better suited to experts rather than novices and may be better incorporated in small amounts rather than used exclusively.

NP Thank you for that explanation. I just don't understand why everything is either "this or that" and never something in the middle; or just improving the existing instead of throwing it out and replacing it with something entirely different. So illogical and frustrating.

Yes. It comes in waves and can differ depending on the subject. Nationally, ELA is moving back toward a more traditional, content-focused approach, while math is moving in the other direction, toward more of an inquiry approach with problem-based learning.

That’s interesting. I’m no expert but I believe that math needs direct instruction, and then a balance between conceptual and procedural learning. Do you know if the inquiry approach to math is evidence based? Is there a “science of math”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Old APS parent here. Knowing what I know now, I absolutely would have applied to send my kids to ATS (we did not even lottery, though I did learn about it at kindergarten info night).

How I think of it is, ATS runs like schools ran when I was a kid. Traditional. Other APS schools are trying new models that generally are not proven and not as effective.

We switched to Catholic during Covid which also runs a more traditional model, but which you pay for out of pocket.

I do think we should add another ATS. The question is where to put it, because you have to take offline an existing ES, and that's a nightmare like all boundary stuff is.

But as an Arlington taxpayer, I would love to see all our schools swinging back toward a more traditional learning model.

I also completely agree on the importance of having one teacher who really gets to know your kid and be invested in them. I hated when our APS elem started rotating kids in 4th grade and all those connections got broken.

Just want to chime in as an ATS parent. What distinguishes ATS is the following:

- high expectations when it comes to academics
- high expectations when it comes to behavior
- direct interaction as opposed to inquiry based learning (this is the most important difference in my opinion)
- focus on phonics in the earlier grades
- curriculum has always been knowledge based even before the adoption of CKLA
- extremely diverse student body
- no standards based grading in the higher grades
-homework
- arts focus

This all sounds pretty generic, though I'm not familiar with "direct interaction" vs. "inquiry based learning." Again, the main issue I see with ATS, and why we didn't bother trying the lottery, is that they can't really identify what they're doing that is so special. Anyone at ATS who hasn't also been at another school (most of ATS) has only experienced ATS and been told it is extra special.

That’s because you don’t know the difference between inquiry based learning and direct instruction. They are completely different methods of teaching. The delivery is different. The teacher’s role is different. The students roles’ are different. The way students interact with each other are different. It’s a completely different way to run a classroom. The differences are vast. Just because the difference is too abstract for you to understand doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I suggest you learn about the different methods of instruction. You can start with Natalie Wexler.

Your entire response just repeats the assertion that "direct interaction" and "inquiry based learning" are different without explaining HOW they are different. I'll google Natalie Wexler and try to educate myself, but repeating a claim without backing it up doesn't make it more convincing. Also, even if this one thing is the true difference, why burry that with all the other generic stuff? No wonder so many of us are confused.

DP Direct instruction (not interaction) is a more traditional approach whereby the teacher provides instruction to the class as a whole, does worked examples, and lays out problems in a scaffolded manner so that students can build a base of knowledge before tackling the next level difficulty problem. Essentially, teachers take a direct role in teaching kids material. With inquiry or discovery learning, the teacher is more a facilitator and students often work together in small groups on material and attempt to figure problems out on their own. Students ask questions of the teacher when they hit an impasse. The teacher does not give them the answer directly but will ask students follow-up questions to guide their thinking toward the answer. Inquiry learning is meant to encourage productive struggle. Since inquiry learning is generally more time consuming than direct instruction, often less content is covered with an inquiry approach. Inquiry learning tends to put more emphasis on thinking process skills and less emphasis on the particular content itself.
Each approach has its advocates. However, inquiry learning is generally more successful when students have a base of knowledge to work with; as such, it may be better suited to experts rather than novices and may be better incorporated in small amounts rather than used exclusively.

NP Thank you for that explanation. I just don't understand why everything is either "this or that" and never something in the middle; or just improving the existing instead of throwing it out and replacing it with something entirely different. So illogical and frustrating.

Yes. It comes in waves and can differ depending on the subject. Nationally, ELA is moving back toward a more traditional, content-focused approach, while math is moving in the other direction, toward more of an inquiry approach with problem-based learning.

That’s interesting. I’m no expert but I believe that math needs direct instruction, and then a balance between conceptual and procedural learning. Do you know if the inquiry approach to math is evidence based? Is there a “science of math”?

Both sides believe their approach is evidence-based. However, cognitive science would argue for a more traditional approach of getting young students automatic in their math facts and procedures early on, thus freeing up more working memory for problem-solving later. The US Dept of Education's WWC practice guide for struggling math students effectively argues for direct instruction. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/26

However, the traditional math view is not popular now. Math is where ELA was five or so years ago when everyone supported balanced literacy. There is a Science of Math but it has not received national notice, although that is beginning to change given the increasing attention given to the Science of Reading. https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-how-a-debate-over-the-science-of-math-could-reignite-the-math-wars/ However, the national math groups like NCTM are not supporters of the Science of Math and believe that moving more toward an inquiry learning approach is key to getting more students interested in math.

[Anonymous]

I just want to state my personal desire to not turn APS into a lottery of ATS, specialized school options. Neighborhood schools have tremendous value and having your children be able to wander the streets with their friends and knowing the families in each house is worth a lot more to me than these specialized options and knowing that MY school is the BEST scoring elementary school in Arlington is so stupid to me I can’t even tell you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just want to state my personal desire to not turn APS into a lottery of ATS, specialized school options. Neighborhood schools have tremendous value and having your children be able to wander the streets with their friends and knowing the families in each house is worth a lot more to me than these specialized options and knowing that MY school is the BEST scoring elementary school in Arlington is so stupid to me I can’t even tell you.

I really appreciated the community aspect of the neighborhood school we attended but the behavior issues were out of control. ATS was a better fit for us in the end. I didn't apply for k/1 because it actually isn't my philosophy but it matches my child's personality and preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APS 100% has school choice!!! That is what option schools are! You can lottery into them!

Actual "school choice" is everyone having the ability to choose the school they go to. Limited lotteries for a few programs is not that. A ranked choice system is actually far closer to a "school choice" system because (1) everyone is ranking their preferences and (2) the vast majority of people get their first or second choice.

We absolutely have taxpayer funded school choice in Arlington. Through these option schools, if you're lucky enough to lottery in. Through lots of transfers to under enrolled schools if you're willing to provide transportation. Through virtual VA if you want that for your kids. And now through 529s that can be used for K-12. If you're wealthy enough, you can start putting aside alot of money before your kids are even school age.

Even in places with what you define as school choice, not everyone has an actual choice if they can't afford to attend the school they want, can't get into it, or can't provide transportation to it.

The only real argument left is whether or not parents want more school choice and in what form. More options, charters, new lab schools that districts and universities are working on together, vouchers, something else? But every time I turn around APS parents seem to be asking for more choice. They want french immersion or ATS middle school or virtual school or whatever else the flavor of the day is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Old APS parent here. Knowing what I know now, I absolutely would have applied to send my kids to ATS (we did not even lottery, though I did learn about it at kindergarten info night).

How I think of it is, ATS runs like schools ran when I was a kid. Traditional. Other APS schools are trying new models that generally are not proven and not as effective.

We switched to Catholic during Covid which also runs a more traditional model, but which you pay for out of pocket.

I do think we should add another ATS. The question is where to put it, because you have to take offline an existing ES, and that's a nightmare like all boundary stuff is.

But as an Arlington taxpayer, I would love to see all our schools swinging back toward a more traditional learning model.

I also completely agree on the importance of having one teacher who really gets to know your kid and be invested in them. I hated when our APS elem started rotating kids in 4th grade and all those connections got broken.

Just want to chime in as an ATS parent. What distinguishes ATS is the following:

- high expectations when it comes to academics
- high expectations when it comes to behavior
- direct interaction as opposed to inquiry based learning (this is the most important difference in my opinion)
- focus on phonics in the earlier grades
- curriculum has always been knowledge based even before the adoption of CKLA
- extremely diverse student body
- no standards based grading in the higher grades
-homework
- arts focus

This all sounds pretty generic, though I'm not familiar with "direct interaction" vs. "inquiry based learning." Again, the main issue I see with ATS, and why we didn't bother trying the lottery, is that they can't really identify what they're doing that is so special. Anyone at ATS who hasn't also been at another school (most of ATS) has only experienced ATS and been told it is extra special.

That’s because you don’t know the difference between inquiry based learning and direct instruction. They are completely different methods of teaching. The delivery is different. The teacher’s role is different. The students roles’ are different. The way students interact with each other are different. It’s a completely different way to run a classroom. The differences are vast. Just because the difference is too abstract for you to understand doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I suggest you learn about the different methods of instruction. You can start with Natalie Wexler.

Your entire response just repeats the assertion that "direct interaction" and "inquiry based learning" are different without explaining HOW they are different. I'll google Natalie Wexler and try to educate myself, but repeating a claim without backing it up doesn't make it more convincing. Also, even if this one thing is the true difference, why burry that with all the other generic stuff? No wonder so many of us are confused.

DP Direct instruction (not interaction) is a more traditional approach whereby the teacher provides instruction to the class as a whole, does worked examples, and lays out problems in a scaffolded manner so that students can build a base of knowledge before tackling the next level difficulty problem. Essentially, teachers take a direct role in teaching kids material. With inquiry or discovery learning, the teacher is more a facilitator and students often work together in small groups on material and attempt to figure problems out on their own. Students ask questions of the teacher when they hit an impasse. The teacher does not give them the answer directly but will ask students follow-up questions to guide their thinking toward the answer. Inquiry learning is meant to encourage productive struggle. Since inquiry learning is generally more time consuming than direct instruction, often less content is covered with an inquiry approach. Inquiry learning tends to put more emphasis on thinking process skills and less emphasis on the particular content itself.
Each approach has its advocates. However, inquiry learning is generally more successful when students have a base of knowledge to work with; as such, it may be better suited to experts rather than novices and may be better incorporated in small amounts rather than used exclusively.

NP Thank you for that explanation. I just don't understand why everything is either "this or that" and never something in the middle; or just improving the existing instead of throwing it out and replacing it with something entirely different. So illogical and frustrating.

Yes. It comes in waves and can differ depending on the subject. Nationally, ELA is moving back toward a more traditional, content-focused approach, while math is moving in the other direction, toward more of an inquiry approach with problem-based learning.

That’s interesting. I’m no expert but I believe that math needs direct instruction, and then a balance between conceptual and procedural learning. Do you know if the inquiry approach to math is evidence based? Is there a “science of math”?

Both sides believe their approach is evidence-based. However, cognitive science would argue for a more traditional approach of getting young students automatic in their math facts and procedures early on, thus freeing up more working memory for problem-solving later. The US Dept of Education's WWC practice guide for struggling math students effectively argues for direct instruction. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/26

However, the traditional math view is not popular now. Math is where ELA was five or so years ago when everyone supported balanced literacy. There is a Science of Math but it has not received national notice, although that is beginning to change given the increasing attention given to the Science of Reading. https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-how-a-debate-over-the-science-of-math-could-reignite-the-math-wars/ However, the national math groups like NCTM are not supporters of the Science of Math and believe that moving more toward an inquiry learning approach is key to getting more students interested in math.

Interesting. So what side has APS’ math department taken in this debate? I know APS recently adopted a new math curriculum but I haven’t heard much about it. We are hearing so much about phonics and CKLA and how great these changes are but very little about math. For the record, I am an ATS parent. I’ve been really impressed with what ATS is doing with English but with math I don’t know. Like many parents, I make my kids do math problems at home with a focus on math facts. But I honestly don’t know much about math in general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Old APS parent here. Knowing what I know now, I absolutely would have applied to send my kids to ATS (we did not even lottery, though I did learn about it at kindergarten info night).

How I think of it is, ATS runs like schools ran when I was a kid. Traditional. Other APS schools are trying new models that generally are not proven and not as effective.

We switched to Catholic during Covid which also runs a more traditional model, but which you pay for out of pocket.

I do think we should add another ATS. The question is where to put it, because you have to take offline an existing ES, and that's a nightmare like all boundary stuff is.

But as an Arlington taxpayer, I would love to see all our schools swinging back toward a more traditional learning model.

I also completely agree on the importance of having one teacher who really gets to know your kid and be invested in them. I hated when our APS elem started rotating kids in 4th grade and all those connections got broken.

Just want to chime in as an ATS parent. What distinguishes ATS is the following:

- high expectations when it comes to academics
- high expectations when it comes to behavior
- direct interaction as opposed to inquiry based learning (this is the most important difference in my opinion)
- focus on phonics in the earlier grades
- curriculum has always been knowledge based even before the adoption of CKLA
- extremely diverse student body
- no standards based grading in the higher grades
-homework
- arts focus

This all sounds pretty generic, though I'm not familiar with "direct interaction" vs. "inquiry based learning." Again, the main issue I see with ATS, and why we didn't bother trying the lottery, is that they can't really identify what they're doing that is so special. Anyone at ATS who hasn't also been at another school (most of ATS) has only experienced ATS and been told it is extra special.

That’s because you don’t know the difference between inquiry based learning and direct instruction. They are completely different methods of teaching. The delivery is different. The teacher’s role is different. The students roles’ are different. The way students interact with each other are different. It’s a completely different way to run a classroom. The differences are vast. Just because the difference is too abstract for you to understand doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I suggest you learn about the different methods of instruction. You can start with Natalie Wexler.

Your entire response just repeats the assertion that "direct interaction" and "inquiry based learning" are different without explaining HOW they are different. I'll google Natalie Wexler and try to educate myself, but repeating a claim without backing it up doesn't make it more convincing. Also, even if this one thing is the true difference, why burry that with all the other generic stuff? No wonder so many of us are confused.

DP Direct instruction (not interaction) is a more traditional approach whereby the teacher provides instruction to the class as a whole, does worked examples, and lays out problems in a scaffolded manner so that students can build a base of knowledge before tackling the next level difficulty problem. Essentially, teachers take a direct role in teaching kids material. With inquiry or discovery learning, the teacher is more a facilitator and students often work together in small groups on material and attempt to figure problems out on their own. Students ask questions of the teacher when they hit an impasse. The teacher does not give them the answer directly but will ask students follow-up questions to guide their thinking toward the answer. Inquiry learning is meant to encourage productive struggle. Since inquiry learning is generally more time consuming than direct instruction, often less content is covered with an inquiry approach. Inquiry learning tends to put more emphasis on thinking process skills and less emphasis on the particular content itself.
Each approach has its advocates. However, inquiry learning is generally more successful when students have a base of knowledge to work with; as such, it may be better suited to experts rather than novices and may be better incorporated in small amounts rather than used exclusively.

NP Thank you for that explanation. I just don't understand why everything is either "this or that" and never something in the middle; or just improving the existing instead of throwing it out and replacing it with something entirely different. So illogical and frustrating.

Yes. It comes in waves and can differ depending on the subject. Nationally, ELA is moving back toward a more traditional, content-focused approach, while math is moving in the other direction, toward more of an inquiry approach with problem-based learning.

That’s interesting. I’m no expert but I believe that math needs direct instruction, and then a balance between conceptual and procedural learning. Do you know if the inquiry approach to math is evidence based? Is there a “science of math”?

Both sides believe their approach is evidence-based. However, cognitive science would argue for a more traditional approach of getting young students automatic in their math facts and procedures early on, thus freeing up more working memory for problem-solving later. The US Dept of Education's WWC practice guide for struggling math students effectively argues for direct instruction. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/26

However, the traditional math view is not popular now. Math is where ELA was five or so years ago when everyone supported balanced literacy. There is a Science of Math but it has not received national notice, although that is beginning to change given the increasing attention given to the Science of Reading. https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-how-a-debate-over-the-science-of-math-could-reignite-the-math-wars/ However, the national math groups like NCTM are not supporters of the Science of Math and believe that moving more toward an inquiry learning approach is key to getting more students interested in math.

Interesting. So what side has APS’ math department taken in this debate? I know APS recently adopted a new math curriculum but I haven’t heard much about it. We are hearing so much about phonics and CKLA and how great these changes are but very little about math. For the record, I am an ATS parent. I’ve been really impressed with what ATS is doing with English but with math I don’t know. Like many parents, I make my kids do math problems at home with a focus on math facts. But I honestly don’t know much about math in general.

Also thanks for the articles and the links. Will take a look later on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I disagree. We should have zero choice schools.

Bussing is a huge cost and they can't get bus drivers anyway. We need all neighborhood schools.

My kids go to ATS and I agree. We choose ATS b/c of horrible neighborhood school BTW. Improve the schools and don't let the principals make poor choices. It's not rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ATS also only has 7.65% students with disabilities, the county average is 14.37%. That also helps juice the test scores.

Yet if you look at the SOL scores for those students, they outperform SN kids at other schools. Also, and this will surprise you, ATS provides interventions early and often thereby remediating some early differences so they don't become "SN" kids. It's amazing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree w having more option schools. The answer is to follow the ATS model in neighborhood schools. We seem to be moving in opposite direction though w equity grading.

I guess I could never get a good feel for what "traditional" meant. I realize there's a heavy emphasis on reading and homework every day. And tucking in shirts (maybe that went away).

But I asked the principal at an info session (this was in 2018) and she gave me this line about the school having walls with doors. I was SO confused. My kid's neighborhood school has walls and doors?

I know the school culture is most likely a bit part of what makes kids successful. But if the ideas there are so well done, why aren't we doing it APS wide? What is the main difference between the way ATS does teaching and the rest of the county? I don't' want to hear it's kindergarten kids reading for 30 minutes a night. That's not a curriculum.

ATS holds all their students to a high standard of reading and reading is a true part of their culture. That's the difference.

Right, which it can ONLY do because it's an option school. So if it DOES NOT WORK for some children (say, those who struggle with reading!) they will not attend ATS, or they will be asked to leave.

That's EXACTLY why it can not be moved into every elementary school. The population self selects into children with certain skills and abilities very quickly.

False. My kid with dyslexia was not given proper instruction at neighborhood school. Got into ATS by some miracle or I bribed somebody, hard to say, and my kid got amazing remediation. Also, they double literacy time in early elementary. Double of what neighborhood schools do. That's different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree w having more option schools. The answer is to follow the ATS model in neighborhood schools. We seem to be moving in opposite direction though w equity grading.

I guess I could never get a good feel for what "traditional" meant. I realize there's a heavy emphasis on reading and homework every day. And tucking in shirts (maybe that went away).

But I asked the principal at an info session (this was in 2018) and she gave me this line about the school having walls with doors. I was SO confused. My kid's neighborhood school has walls and doors?

I know the school culture is most likely a bit part of what makes kids successful. But if the ideas there are so well done, why aren't we doing it APS wide? What is the main difference between the way ATS does teaching and the rest of the county? I don't' want to hear it's kindergarten kids reading for 30 minutes a night. That's not a curriculum.

ATS holds all their students to a high standard of reading and reading is a true part of their culture. That's the difference.

Right, which it can ONLY do because it's an option school. So if it DOES NOT WORK for some children (say, those who struggle with reading!) they will not attend ATS, or they will be asked to leave.

That's EXACTLY why it can not be moved into every elementary school. The population self selects into children with certain skills and abilities very quickly.

Say what? Am I understanding your post correctly: ATS will kick students out if they are not performing on grade level?

Every poster here who said ATS holds its students to higher standards... I assumed on an attitude level? Kids literally get asked to leave if they struggle with reading? This is documented?

People like making stuff up. These people tend to not have any experience with ATS and harbor this really strong hatred for the school. My daughter’s classmate came from to ATS mid-year. She was behind in every metric. A teacher worked with her every day after school to make sure she was reading and writing on grade level. ATS works with students who are behind and very few students leave ATS.

How does ATS do their staffing to have a dedicated teacher to work 1 on 1 with a student who is behind? I ask this as someone in a neighborhood school where this would NEVER happen. Is this work outside of contract hours? Is this a classroom teacher?

Have more resource teachers. When the list of new hires came out at the beginning of the year, most were for remediation. ATS pours resources on kids who need it. Also, there's talk about counseling out of ATS but if that was a thing, my kid, for sure, would have been counseled out, but wasn't.