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

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: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.


Nope. But nice to know WTU has entered the chat!


What would BASIS be like if all schools had to take a proportionate share of students who move into DC from out of state? What would BASIS be like if all schools had to educate a proportionate share of students with high-level IEPs? Methinks BASIS' wonderful "success" wouldn't shine so bright.


What would DCPS be like if it offered magnet and gifted programs in MS and accelerated academic tracks, and had entrance exams and failed kids who couldn’t meet the standards? Then DCPS parents would not be flocking to 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


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.


it’s not counseling out. it’s having standards and parents making a choice in light of them. this is no different from giving kids failing grades when they fail tests. what you really don’t like is the standards. (or you’re an ideological anti-charter person.)


No, I think a standard could be maintained by requiring summer school or after-school tutoring, by requiring a study skills elective, or by continuing to give low grades. What BASIS is doing is offering an alternative of you accept an age-inappropriate placement *which is inappropriate for basically nobody*, or you leave. Again, I ask that anyone describe the profile of a student for whom repeating two elementary grades is a *good* choice that effectively addresses their needs. Can anyone, anyone, describe a situation where this would be a good faith recommendation? Or is it more that they have to push one kid out of the lifeboat to save the rest?
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:
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.


Nope. But nice to know WTU has entered the chat!


What would BASIS be like if all schools had to take a proportionate share of students who move into DC from out of state? What would BASIS be like if all schools had to educate a proportionate share of students with high-level IEPs? Methinks BASIS' wonderful "success" wouldn't shine so bright.


What would DCPS be like if it offered magnet and gifted programs in MS and accelerated academic tracks, and had entrance exams and failed kids who couldn’t meet the standards? Then DCPS parents would not be flocking to Basis.


so what?

BASIS' "model" is premised on doing the easy parts, and avoiding the hard parts. As if my "model" at work was that I only do the tasks that are easy for me and blow off the rest, and I can only be rated on the easy tasks. If BASIS wasn't allowed to avoid the harder work, it wouldn't be as appealing to parents or look as successful. It's all premised on avoiding a fair share of the hardest parts of education.
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: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.


No one disagrees. Where you and I diverge is what it means to serve students in good faith. You seem to think it means watering down until every kid succeeds, and even then promoting anyway. I (and BASIS) think it means providing all available support but insisting that the minimum standard be met. "Counsel out" is a loaded term. If I tell you I think you are not going to succeed and you will not advance until you do, but you are welcome to stay and keep trying, that's being honest with you. I think many of the DC parents spent their entre lives being told how smart and pretty they were, such that they think any criticism or failure is someone else's fault. You've all taken that and cubed it with your own kids.


Can you describe to me what kind of student would be well-served by repeating more than one grade in elementary school? What academic or developmental problems does it address? Or does it create new problems, and hinder the child's development in other ways?


Can you describe to me what kind of other students would be well-served by having a disruptive kid 2 grade levels behind in their class for years on end? What academic or developmental needs of the other kids does it address? Or does it create new problems for the kids who are not 2+ grade levels behind and are capable of behaving in a classroom setting, and hinder all of the other children's academic growth in other ways?

This is the crux of the argument. All outcomes are suboptimal. You seem only to care about negative impact to the problems whereas I am focused on all the other kids who are punished by your approach. Plus, I understand that the kids who suffer from poor classroom management, disruptions and kids 2+ grade levels behind are disproportionately low-SES and POC. You talk a good game about ensuring the best possible education for all kids. My policies actually achieve highest net positive impact. And, yes, some kids suffer, but that's a better choice than making lots of kids suffer.

You also seek to limit this to discussion to ES. The problem with that is at some point those kids enter MS and HS years behind grade level. What do you do then, since you've set them up for failure? I have asked this over and over, but I will ask it again. What value to society and gainful employment does a "graduate" with a 4th grade education have to look forward to?


You seem to passionately care about struggling kids in DC, yet strenously resist the actual solution: tracked programs according to needs and ability. Why do you INSIST on destroying programs that are academically challenging in the name of “equity”? Would you be satisfied if BASIS created remedial classrooms and sent all the failing kids there?
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:
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.


Nope. But nice to know WTU has entered the chat!


What would BASIS be like if all schools had to take a proportionate share of students who move into DC from out of state? What would BASIS be like if all schools had to educate a proportionate share of students with high-level IEPs? Methinks BASIS' wonderful "success" wouldn't shine so bright.


What would DCPS be like if it offered magnet and gifted programs in MS and accelerated academic tracks, and had entrance exams and failed kids who couldn’t meet the standards? Then DCPS parents would not be flocking to Basis.


so what?

BASIS' "model" is premised on doing the easy parts, and avoiding the hard parts. As if my "model" at work was that I only do the tasks that are easy for me and blow off the rest, and I can only be rated on the easy tasks. If BASIS wasn't allowed to avoid the harder work, it wouldn't be as appealing to parents or look as successful. It's all premised on avoiding a fair share of the hardest parts of education.


They definitely avoid some of the hardest parts - dealing with unmotivated students or students with special needs. But accelerated teaching is also very hard, in a different way. The only easy part of teaching would be giving a mediocre education to motivated and well-supported students.
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:
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.


No one disagrees. Where you and I diverge is what it means to serve students in good faith. You seem to think it means watering down until every kid succeeds, and even then promoting anyway. I (and BASIS) think it means providing all available support but insisting that the minimum standard be met. "Counsel out" is a loaded term. If I tell you I think you are not going to succeed and you will not advance until you do, but you are welcome to stay and keep trying, that's being honest with you. I think many of the DC parents spent their entre lives being told how smart and pretty they were, such that they think any criticism or failure is someone else's fault. You've all taken that and cubed it with your own kids.


Can you describe to me what kind of student would be well-served by repeating more than one grade in elementary school? What academic or developmental problems does it address? Or does it create new problems, and hinder the child's development in other ways?


Can you describe to me what kind of other students would be well-served by having a disruptive kid 2 grade levels behind in their class for years on end? What academic or developmental needs of the other kids does it address? Or does it create new problems for the kids who are not 2+ grade levels behind and are capable of behaving in a classroom setting, and hinder all of the other children's academic growth in other ways?

This is the crux of the argument. All outcomes are suboptimal. You seem only to care about negative impact to the problems whereas I am focused on all the other kids who are punished by your approach. Plus, I understand that the kids who suffer from poor classroom management, disruptions and kids 2+ grade levels behind are disproportionately low-SES and POC. You talk a good game about ensuring the best possible education for all kids. My policies actually achieve highest net positive impact. And, yes, some kids suffer, but that's a better choice than making lots of kids suffer.

You also seek to limit this to discussion to ES. The problem with that is at some point those kids enter MS and HS years behind grade level. What do you do then, since you've set them up for failure? I have asked this over and over, but I will ask it again. What value to society and gainful employment does a "graduate" with a 4th grade education have to look forward to?


You seem to passionately care about struggling kids in DC, yet strenously resist the actual solution: tracked programs according to needs and ability. Why do you INSIST on destroying programs that are academically challenging in the name of “equity”? Would you be satisfied if BASIS created remedial classrooms and sent all the failing kids there?


Actually I'd be ok with tracking under certain circumstances. But I think it's misleading to compare BASIS to other schools knowing how it shirks certain responsibilities. It isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. I think if BASIS had to play by the same rules that other schools do, it wouldn't look so great, and therefore I don't think we need any more BASIS than we already have.
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:
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.


No one disagrees. Where you and I diverge is what it means to serve students in good faith. You seem to think it means watering down until every kid succeeds, and even then promoting anyway. I (and BASIS) think it means providing all available support but insisting that the minimum standard be met. "Counsel out" is a loaded term. If I tell you I think you are not going to succeed and you will not advance until you do, but you are welcome to stay and keep trying, that's being honest with you. I think many of the DC parents spent their entre lives being told how smart and pretty they were, such that they think any criticism or failure is someone else's fault. You've all taken that and cubed it with your own kids.


Can you describe to me what kind of student would be well-served by repeating more than one grade in elementary school? What academic or developmental problems does it address? Or does it create new problems, and hinder the child's development in other ways?


Can you describe to me what kind of other students would be well-served by having a disruptive kid 2 grade levels behind in their class for years on end? What academic or developmental needs of the other kids does it address? Or does it create new problems for the kids who are not 2+ grade levels behind and are capable of behaving in a classroom setting, and hinder all of the other children's academic growth in other ways?

This is the crux of the argument. All outcomes are suboptimal. You seem only to care about negative impact to the problems whereas I am focused on all the other kids who are punished by your approach. Plus, I understand that the kids who suffer from poor classroom management, disruptions and kids 2+ grade levels behind are disproportionately low-SES and POC. You talk a good game about ensuring the best possible education for all kids. My policies actually achieve highest net positive impact. And, yes, some kids suffer, but that's a better choice than making lots of kids suffer.

You also seek to limit this to discussion to ES. The problem with that is at some point those kids enter MS and HS years behind grade level. What do you do then, since you've set them up for failure? I have asked this over and over, but I will ask it again. What value to society and gainful employment does a "graduate" with a 4th grade education have to look forward to?


Indeed, the needs of the students are not aligned. But I think with adequate services such as a 1:1 aide and push-in support, the situation could be manageable. Is BASIS unwilling to provide those services? In DCPS there's a Behavior and Emotional Support program for children who can't be placed in general education classrooms. I believe KIPP schools also provide self-contained classrooms. Is BASIS unwilling to do that?

The discussion is limited to ES because BASIS is seeking authorization for an ES. I understand that kids grow up and will enter MS below grade level, but I don't think their situation will be improved because they're older, or because they've been forced to spend time in a younger children's classroom. I see that they will struggle with competitive employment, but other types of employment could be available, and to say that there's no "value to society" is awfully harsh.

And I ask you again, what of a student who fails a BASIS test in one subject but is on grade level for other subjects. Should they be forced to repeat a grade? It seems a high price to pay.



Do you really think that *any* student in a self-contained classroom can succeed in advanced coursework at any school in the nation? Really?

Your answer is providing funds for a 1:1 aide? How many of those should a school fund? That money is taken away from the rest of the students who are not in the self-contained classroom. No thank you.
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:
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.


No one disagrees. Where you and I diverge is what it means to serve students in good faith. You seem to think it means watering down until every kid succeeds, and even then promoting anyway. I (and BASIS) think it means providing all available support but insisting that the minimum standard be met. "Counsel out" is a loaded term. If I tell you I think you are not going to succeed and you will not advance until you do, but you are welcome to stay and keep trying, that's being honest with you. I think many of the DC parents spent their entre lives being told how smart and pretty they were, such that they think any criticism or failure is someone else's fault. You've all taken that and cubed it with your own kids.


Can you describe to me what kind of student would be well-served by repeating more than one grade in elementary school? What academic or developmental problems does it address? Or does it create new problems, and hinder the child's development in other ways?


Can you describe to me what kind of other students would be well-served by having a disruptive kid 2 grade levels behind in their class for years on end? What academic or developmental needs of the other kids does it address? Or does it create new problems for the kids who are not 2+ grade levels behind and are capable of behaving in a classroom setting, and hinder all of the other children's academic growth in other ways?

This is the crux of the argument. All outcomes are suboptimal. You seem only to care about negative impact to the problems whereas I am focused on all the other kids who are punished by your approach. Plus, I understand that the kids who suffer from poor classroom management, disruptions and kids 2+ grade levels behind are disproportionately low-SES and POC. You talk a good game about ensuring the best possible education for all kids. My policies actually achieve highest net positive impact. And, yes, some kids suffer, but that's a better choice than making lots of kids suffer.

You also seek to limit this to discussion to ES. The problem with that is at some point those kids enter MS and HS years behind grade level. What do you do then, since you've set them up for failure? I have asked this over and over, but I will ask it again. What value to society and gainful employment does a "graduate" with a 4th grade education have to look forward to?


Indeed, the needs of the students are not aligned. But I think with adequate services such as a 1:1 aide and push-in support, the situation could be manageable. Is BASIS unwilling to provide those services? In DCPS there's a Behavior and Emotional Support program for children who can't be placed in general education classrooms. I believe KIPP schools also provide self-contained classrooms. Is BASIS unwilling to do that?

The discussion is limited to ES because BASIS is seeking authorization for an ES. I understand that kids grow up and will enter MS below grade level, but I don't think their situation will be improved because they're older, or because they've been forced to spend time in a younger children's classroom. I see that they will struggle with competitive employment, but other types of employment could be available, and to say that there's no "value to society" is awfully harsh.

And I ask you again, what of a student who fails a BASIS test in one subject but is on grade level for other subjects. Should they be forced to repeat a grade? It seems a high price to pay.



Do you really think that *any* student in a self-contained classroom can succeed in advanced coursework at any school in the nation? Really?

Your answer is providing funds for a 1:1 aide? How many of those should a school fund? That money is taken away from the rest of the students who are not in the self-contained classroom. No thank you.


I do think that, if adequate support is provided. Some kids need 1:1 support and specialized teaching but are nonetheless highly motivated and intelligent. Other students can't do advanced coursework, but let's be real here, lots of kids at BASIS aren't doing advanced coursework.

Schools should fund as many 1:1 aides as their students' IEPs require, according to the law. The money is not taken away from other students. You need to understand how the UPSFF works.
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:
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.


Nope. But nice to know WTU has entered the chat!


What would BASIS be like if all schools had to take a proportionate share of students who move into DC from out of state? What would BASIS be like if all schools had to educate a proportionate share of students with high-level IEPs? Methinks BASIS' wonderful "success" wouldn't shine so bright.


Wait - now you are forcing kids with SN who can't handle the BASIS curriculum to attend to prove a point? Wow. That's some sincere concern for the kids you have.


PP is clueless. Basis actually does have an obligation to take high-level IEPs. But what would happen is that they would get a private placement.
Anonymous
If BASIS is only for kids who can do advanced coursework, they'll need to be kicking out an awful lot of their current students, no? More than 1/3 of BASIS students are below grade level on the math PARCC, just sayin'.
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:
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.


Nope. But nice to know WTU has entered the chat!


What would BASIS be like if all schools had to take a proportionate share of students who move into DC from out of state? What would BASIS be like if all schools had to educate a proportionate share of students with high-level IEPs? Methinks BASIS' wonderful "success" wouldn't shine so bright.


What would DCPS be like if it offered magnet and gifted programs in MS and accelerated academic tracks, and had entrance exams and failed kids who couldn’t meet the standards? Then DCPS parents would not be flocking to Basis.


so what?

BASIS' "model" is premised on doing the easy parts, and avoiding the hard parts. As if my "model" at work was that I only do the tasks that are easy for me and blow off the rest, and I can only be rated on the easy tasks. If BASIS wasn't allowed to avoid the harder work, it wouldn't be as appealing to parents or look as successful. It's all premised on avoiding a fair share of the hardest parts of education.


You sound like an elementary school parent. When kids get into MS and beyond, it is acceptable and appropriate for them to be sorted into groups by academic ability. This is normal and good. Arguing that we have to get rid of acceleration programs because all schools (and classes) have to “do the hard part” is crazy and destructive. What really seems to irk you is that Basis can filter for students who can be accelerated because you apparently think it is unfair that DCPS has to take all comers. But the sensible response to that is not “destroy acceleration at charters because DCPD cannot do that.” The sensible response is “provide more acceleration at DCPS.”

Really though you just hate charters.
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:
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.


No one disagrees. Where you and I diverge is what it means to serve students in good faith. You seem to think it means watering down until every kid succeeds, and even then promoting anyway. I (and BASIS) think it means providing all available support but insisting that the minimum standard be met. "Counsel out" is a loaded term. If I tell you I think you are not going to succeed and you will not advance until you do, but you are welcome to stay and keep trying, that's being honest with you. I think many of the DC parents spent their entre lives being told how smart and pretty they were, such that they think any criticism or failure is someone else's fault. You've all taken that and cubed it with your own kids.


Can you describe to me what kind of student would be well-served by repeating more than one grade in elementary school? What academic or developmental problems does it address? Or does it create new problems, and hinder the child's development in other ways?


Can you describe to me what kind of other students would be well-served by having a disruptive kid 2 grade levels behind in their class for years on end? What academic or developmental needs of the other kids does it address? Or does it create new problems for the kids who are not 2+ grade levels behind and are capable of behaving in a classroom setting, and hinder all of the other children's academic growth in other ways?

This is the crux of the argument. All outcomes are suboptimal. You seem only to care about negative impact to the problems whereas I am focused on all the other kids who are punished by your approach. Plus, I understand that the kids who suffer from poor classroom management, disruptions and kids 2+ grade levels behind are disproportionately low-SES and POC. You talk a good game about ensuring the best possible education for all kids. My policies actually achieve highest net positive impact. And, yes, some kids suffer, but that's a better choice than making lots of kids suffer.

You also seek to limit this to discussion to ES. The problem with that is at some point those kids enter MS and HS years behind grade level. What do you do then, since you've set them up for failure? I have asked this over and over, but I will ask it again. What value to society and gainful employment does a "graduate" with a 4th grade education have to look forward to?


You seem to passionately care about struggling kids in DC, yet strenously resist the actual solution: tracked programs according to needs and ability. Why do you INSIST on destroying programs that are academically challenging in the name of “equity”? Would you be satisfied if BASIS created remedial classrooms and sent all the failing kids there?


Actually I'd be ok with tracking under certain circumstances. But I think it's misleading to compare BASIS to other schools knowing how it shirks certain responsibilities. It isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. I think if BASIS had to play by the same rules that other schools do, it wouldn't look so great, and therefore I don't think we need any more BASIS than we already have.


So you want to destroy Basis out of jealousy. We should all just be stuck with DCPS’s increasingly dismal outcomes.
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:
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.


Nope. But nice to know WTU has entered the chat!


What would BASIS be like if all schools had to take a proportionate share of students who move into DC from out of state? What would BASIS be like if all schools had to educate a proportionate share of students with high-level IEPs? Methinks BASIS' wonderful "success" wouldn't shine so bright.


What would DCPS be like if it offered magnet and gifted programs in MS and accelerated academic tracks, and had entrance exams and failed kids who couldn’t meet the standards? Then DCPS parents would not be flocking to Basis.


so what?

BASIS' "model" is premised on doing the easy parts, and avoiding the hard parts. As if my "model" at work was that I only do the tasks that are easy for me and blow off the rest, and I can only be rated on the easy tasks. If BASIS wasn't allowed to avoid the harder work, it wouldn't be as appealing to parents or look as successful. It's all premised on avoiding a fair share of the hardest parts of education.


You sound like an elementary school parent. When kids get into MS and beyond, it is acceptable and appropriate for them to be sorted into groups by academic ability. This is normal and good. Arguing that we have to get rid of acceleration programs because all schools (and classes) have to “do the hard part” is crazy and destructive. What really seems to irk you is that Basis can filter for students who can be accelerated because you apparently think it is unfair that DCPS has to take all comers. But the sensible response to that is not “destroy acceleration at charters because DCPD cannot do that.” The sensible response is “provide more acceleration at DCPS.”

Really though you just hate charters.


I really don't just hate charters, and I'm not against ability grouping. But I hate when people compare BASIS to other schools that have to do things that BASIS refuses to do. It isn't an accurate comparison and it misleads people into thinking BASIS is a better school than it actually is.

BASIS can offer accelerated classes while also providing other classes to other students who are below grade level. It's a very normal thing that many schools routinely do. But it's just sooooooooooo hard for BASIS, they just can't handle it I guess.
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:
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.


No one disagrees. Where you and I diverge is what it means to serve students in good faith. You seem to think it means watering down until every kid succeeds, and even then promoting anyway. I (and BASIS) think it means providing all available support but insisting that the minimum standard be met. "Counsel out" is a loaded term. If I tell you I think you are not going to succeed and you will not advance until you do, but you are welcome to stay and keep trying, that's being honest with you. I think many of the DC parents spent their entre lives being told how smart and pretty they were, such that they think any criticism or failure is someone else's fault. You've all taken that and cubed it with your own kids.


Can you describe to me what kind of student would be well-served by repeating more than one grade in elementary school? What academic or developmental problems does it address? Or does it create new problems, and hinder the child's development in other ways?


Can you describe to me what kind of other students would be well-served by having a disruptive kid 2 grade levels behind in their class for years on end? What academic or developmental needs of the other kids does it address? Or does it create new problems for the kids who are not 2+ grade levels behind and are capable of behaving in a classroom setting, and hinder all of the other children's academic growth in other ways?

This is the crux of the argument. All outcomes are suboptimal. You seem only to care about negative impact to the problems whereas I am focused on all the other kids who are punished by your approach. Plus, I understand that the kids who suffer from poor classroom management, disruptions and kids 2+ grade levels behind are disproportionately low-SES and POC. You talk a good game about ensuring the best possible education for all kids. My policies actually achieve highest net positive impact. And, yes, some kids suffer, but that's a better choice than making lots of kids suffer.

You also seek to limit this to discussion to ES. The problem with that is at some point those kids enter MS and HS years behind grade level. What do you do then, since you've set them up for failure? I have asked this over and over, but I will ask it again. What value to society and gainful employment does a "graduate" with a 4th grade education have to look forward to?


Indeed, the needs of the students are not aligned. But I think with adequate services such as a 1:1 aide and push-in support, the situation could be manageable. Is BASIS unwilling to provide those services? In DCPS there's a Behavior and Emotional Support program for children who can't be placed in general education classrooms. I believe KIPP schools also provide self-contained classrooms. Is BASIS unwilling to do that?

The discussion is limited to ES because BASIS is seeking authorization for an ES. I understand that kids grow up and will enter MS below grade level, but I don't think their situation will be improved because they're older, or because they've been forced to spend time in a younger children's classroom. I see that they will struggle with competitive employment, but other types of employment could be available, and to say that there's no "value to society" is awfully harsh.

And I ask you again, what of a student who fails a BASIS test in one subject but is on grade level for other subjects. Should they be forced to repeat a grade? It seems a high price to pay.



Do you really think that *any* student in a self-contained classroom can succeed in advanced coursework at any school in the nation? Really?

Your answer is providing funds for a 1:1 aide? How many of those should a school fund? That money is taken away from the rest of the students who are not in the self-contained classroom. No thank you.


I do think that, if adequate support is provided. Some kids need 1:1 support and specialized teaching but are nonetheless highly motivated and intelligent. Other students can't do advanced coursework, but let's be real here, lots of kids at BASIS aren't doing advanced coursework.

Schools should fund as many 1:1 aides as their students' IEPs require, according to the law. The money is not taken away from other students. You need to understand how the UPSFF works.


Lol not even DCPS does that. kids who need 1:1s go to self-contained. Charters will throw a 1:1 at a kid in ES because they don’t have the economy of scale to do self-contained generally. (Interesting that KIPP does - likely because they are big.) But a 1:1 is basically just a cheap babysitter. Later in MS the kid goes to a private placement.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:If BASIS is only for kids who can do advanced coursework, they'll need to be kicking out an awful lot of their current students, no? More than 1/3 of BASIS students are below grade level on the math PARCC, just sayin'.


Actually, if you look at 9th grade, the Basis PARCC math proficiency scores are the highest in DC: 77.36.

In comparison, Walls is only at 55.40 for 9th grade, and it supposedly only cherry picks DC's top students.

So, yes, I guess that the advanced math does pay off.
post reply Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools
Message Quick Reply
Go to: