Inspired Teaching?

[Anonymous]

The last post sums up the importance of attending a school with a sufficient highly performing cohort of students. Such a group not only ensures resources will be devoted to acceleration, but motivates more students to strive harder to achieve what they otherwise wouldn’t think of aiming to do.

[Anonymous]

The other side of that is a child is able to get specialized attention in math areas they need it most, thus coming out ahead.

Anonymous wrote:The last post sums up the importance of attending a school with a sufficient highly performing cohort of students. Such a group not only ensures resources will be devoted to acceleration, but motivates more students to strive harder to achieve what they otherwise wouldn’t think of aiming to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The last post sums up the importance of attending a school with a sufficient highly performing cohort of students. Such a group not only ensures resources will be devoted to acceleration, but motivates more students to strive harder to achieve what they otherwise wouldn’t think of aiming to do.

Yes. I'm realizing just how much this matter in middle school (and high school). DCPS schools with higher enrollment simply have more, and more differentiated, course offerings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Geometry was pitched as "we will have it if your kid needs it, but based on test scores there's no one who currently needs it." There is a push for 7th graders to take Algebra this year though so that they'll be ready for 8th grade.

Anonymous wrote:The geometry thing is to my understanding still on the table. Possibly for some of next year's 7th graders or the the year after to begin taking algebra so that they can take geometry in 8th. In previous years they didn't have the capacity to offer this, but it may be possible in the future.

Yeah... That's not a good sign. The only way they're going to have geometry is if they re-think the sequence so that more kids are ready. And stop the attrition of high scoring math kids in the first place. I asked the HOS and got a pretty dismissive answer that it's for outlier kids. But... That's the kid I have.

Honestly, the middle school is tiny and does not have any significant cohort of kids performing well in math to offer this. Their differentiation is basically giving a kid some harder problems. It’s not just math.

It also doesn’t help the high attrition rate that middle school has and new kids coming in who are weak in math already

Right. Those things are connected. But if they were willing to accelerate in 5th and 6th, rather than just offer some side projects to keep the smarter kids busy, then the cohort of kids actually ready for Algebra I and geometry could be larger than it currently is.

It’s about priorities and reality is that it’s a low ROI and not worth it if you only have 1 or 2 kids. They are not going to hire another teacher for this or focus on them. The higher ROI is helping all the kids who are not doing well in math which is a much larger cohort.

And like any small middle school, but especially ITDS which is super tiny, offerings in everything is going to be very limited (classes/course selection, sports, extracurriculars, etc..)

Is it a low ROI though, if it helps improve retention of advanced kids? And it could be more than 1 or 2 kids, right now the numbers are small because they aren't offering Algebra I to 7th graders so the only way to do geometry is to do both courses in 8th, giving up electives.

I also don't see why it would require a new hire. Teaching a handful of the brightest kids for 45 minutes a day isn't that hard and could be done by a teaching resident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The geometry thing is to my understanding still on the table. Possibly for some of next year's 7th graders or the the year after to begin taking algebra so that they can take geometry in 8th. In previous years they didn't have the capacity to offer this, but it may be possible in the future.

How do you find out this stuff? I'm a 5th/6th parent whose kid has Ms. C for math enrichment and I haven't been told anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Geometry was pitched as "we will have it if your kid needs it, but based on test scores there's no one who currently needs it." There is a push for 7th graders to take Algebra this year though so that they'll be ready for 8th grade.

Anonymous wrote:The geometry thing is to my understanding still on the table. Possibly for some of next year's 7th graders or the the year after to begin taking algebra so that they can take geometry in 8th. In previous years they didn't have the capacity to offer this, but it may be possible in the future.

Yeah... That's not a good sign. The only way they're going to have geometry is if they re-think the sequence so that more kids are ready. And stop the attrition of high scoring math kids in the first place. I asked the HOS and got a pretty dismissive answer that it's for outlier kids. But... That's the kid I have.

Honestly, the middle school is tiny and does not have any significant cohort of kids performing well in math to offer this. Their differentiation is basically giving a kid some harder problems. It’s not just math.

It also doesn’t help the high attrition rate that middle school has and new kids coming in who are weak in math already

Right. Those things are connected. But if they were willing to accelerate in 5th and 6th, rather than just offer some side projects to keep the smarter kids busy, then the cohort of kids actually ready for Algebra I and geometry could be larger than it currently is.

It’s about priorities and reality is that it’s a low ROI and not worth it if you only have 1 or 2 kids. They are not going to hire another teacher for this or focus on them. The higher ROI is helping all the kids who are not doing well in math which is a much larger cohort.

And like any small middle school, but especially ITDS which is super tiny, offerings in everything is going to be very limited (classes/course selection, sports, extracurriculars, etc..)

The ROI is probably worth it. I'm at a smaller school that is offering algebra and geometry and has a much higher at-risk population. The students get pulled by a specialist. Instead of going to the regular 7th or 8th grade math class, the math specialist teaches that group. A separate teacher wasn't needed but the specialist's time was modified. Totally worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Geometry was pitched as "we will have it if your kid needs it, but based on test scores there's no one who currently needs it." There is a push for 7th graders to take Algebra this year though so that they'll be ready for 8th grade.

Anonymous wrote:The geometry thing is to my understanding still on the table. Possibly for some of next year's 7th graders or the the year after to begin taking algebra so that they can take geometry in 8th. In previous years they didn't have the capacity to offer this, but it may be possible in the future.

Yeah... That's not a good sign. The only way they're going to have geometry is if they re-think the sequence so that more kids are ready. And stop the attrition of high scoring math kids in the first place. I asked the HOS and got a pretty dismissive answer that it's for outlier kids. But... That's the kid I have.

Honestly, the middle school is tiny and does not have any significant cohort of kids performing well in math to offer this. Their differentiation is basically giving a kid some harder problems. It’s not just math.

It also doesn’t help the high attrition rate that middle school has and new kids coming in who are weak in math already

Right. Those things are connected. But if they were willing to accelerate in 5th and 6th, rather than just offer some side projects to keep the smarter kids busy, then the cohort of kids actually ready for Algebra I and geometry could be larger than it currently is.

It’s about priorities and reality is that it’s a low ROI and not worth it if you only have 1 or 2 kids. They are not going to hire another teacher for this or focus on them. The higher ROI is helping all the kids who are not doing well in math which is a much larger cohort.

And like any small middle school, but especially ITDS which is super tiny, offerings in everything is going to be very limited (classes/course selection, sports, extracurriculars, etc..)

The ROI is probably worth it. I'm at a smaller school that is offering algebra and geometry and has a much higher at-risk population. The students get pulled by a specialist. Instead of going to the regular 7th or 8th grade math class, the math specialist teaches that group. A separate teacher wasn't needed but the specialist's time was modified. Totally worth it.

They don’t have a math specialist. And even if they did get one which is doubtful, no the much bigger ROI is using that specialist to pull out kids who are below grade level for extra help in all the grades.

[Anonymous]

ITDS is lovely but like elementary school being extended 3-4 years. For high achieving kids in any domain (including extracurriculars), this is likely not the optimal model. For a middle of the road introvert, on the other hand, it’s ideal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Geometry was pitched as "we will have it if your kid needs it, but based on test scores there's no one who currently needs it." There is a push for 7th graders to take Algebra this year though so that they'll be ready for 8th grade.

Anonymous wrote:The geometry thing is to my understanding still on the table. Possibly for some of next year's 7th graders or the the year after to begin taking algebra so that they can take geometry in 8th. In previous years they didn't have the capacity to offer this, but it may be possible in the future.

Yeah... That's not a good sign. The only way they're going to have geometry is if they re-think the sequence so that more kids are ready. And stop the attrition of high scoring math kids in the first place. I asked the HOS and got a pretty dismissive answer that it's for outlier kids. But... That's the kid I have.

Honestly, the middle school is tiny and does not have any significant cohort of kids performing well in math to offer this. Their differentiation is basically giving a kid some harder problems. It’s not just math.

It also doesn’t help the high attrition rate that middle school has and new kids coming in who are weak in math already

Right. Those things are connected. But if they were willing to accelerate in 5th and 6th, rather than just offer some side projects to keep the smarter kids busy, then the cohort of kids actually ready for Algebra I and geometry could be larger than it currently is.

It’s about priorities and reality is that it’s a low ROI and not worth it if you only have 1 or 2 kids. They are not going to hire another teacher for this or focus on them. The higher ROI is helping all the kids who are not doing well in math which is a much larger cohort.

And like any small middle school, but especially ITDS which is super tiny, offerings in everything is going to be very limited (classes/course selection, sports, extracurriculars, etc..)

The ROI is probably worth it. I'm at a smaller school that is offering algebra and geometry and has a much higher at-risk population. The students get pulled by a specialist. Instead of going to the regular 7th or 8th grade math class, the math specialist teaches that group. A separate teacher wasn't needed but the specialist's time was modified. Totally worth it.

They don’t have a math specialist. And even if they did get one which is doubtful, no the much bigger ROI is using that specialist to pull out kids who are below grade level for extra help in all the grades.

They have an instructional coach for math. Who already does pull outs with advanced kids. It's just matter of planning so that the pull out time can be spent moving them ahead in the curriculum rather than "enrichment" that may be fun but isn't anything new.

I haven't a clue how "ROI" is measured in your view. Is nothing advanced ever worthwhile? Sure lets ignore the smart kids until they leave. Success!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ITDS is lovely but like elementary school being extended 3-4 years. For high achieving kids in any domain (including extracurriculars), this is likely not the optimal model. For a middle of the road introvert, on the other hand, it’s ideal.

This thread has been interesting for me, a parent of two self-motivated, high-achieving kids who went through ITDS. One of my kids, now in 11th grade, is prepping to apply to T20 colleges. They were well prepared for everything they've encountered at SWW, even though, yes, ITDS didn't challenge my kids as much as I would have liked. (And as you'll read on other threads here, too, SWW is not the be-all-and-end-all--I bring it up just because it's the only high school my family has had experience with, and it's a school a lot of middle-school kids aspire to.) DC was able to catch up to the geometry-in-8th-grade types because of the option to take two math classes at once or do a summer math course.

Do I wish DC could have taken geometry in 8th grade? Yes, I do. But there were a load of other things that ITDS had in its favor that made it the right choice for our family.

ITDS is not perfect. Anyone who thinks it is is fooling themselves. However, ITDS's middle school is also not anything like "elementary school being extended 3-4 years" nor is it uniformly poor for "high achieving kids in any domain."

Please, potential ITDS parents who are reading this thread, take everything with a huge grain of salt. None of these all-or-nothing statements would hold up to even the tiniest amount of pressure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ITDS is lovely but like elementary school being extended 3-4 years. For high achieving kids in any domain (including extracurriculars), this is likely not the optimal model. For a middle of the road introvert, on the other hand, it’s ideal.

This thread has been interesting for me, a parent of two self-motivated, high-achieving kids who went through ITDS. One of my kids, now in 11th grade, is prepping to apply to T20 colleges. They were well prepared for everything they've encountered at SWW, even though, yes, ITDS didn't challenge my kids as much as I would have liked. (And as you'll read on other threads here, too, SWW is not the be-all-and-end-all--I bring it up just because it's the only high school my family has had experience with, and it's a school a lot of middle-school kids aspire to.) DC was able to catch up to the geometry-in-8th-grade types because of the option to take two math classes at once or do a summer math course.

Do I wish DC could have taken geometry in 8th grade? Yes, I do. But there were a load of other things that ITDS had in its favor that made it the right choice for our family.

ITDS is not perfect. Anyone who thinks it is is fooling themselves. However, ITDS's middle school is also not anything like "elementary school being extended 3-4 years" nor is it uniformly poor for "high achieving kids in any domain."

Please, potential ITDS parents who are reading this thread, take everything with a huge grain of salt. None of these all-or-nothing statements would hold up to even the tiniest amount of pressure.

Thank you PP. I just wish my kid's classroom time at ITDS were being more effectively used so that a summer course would not be necessary, and the kid would not be under-challenged and the teachers not struggling so hard with behavior management.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Geometry was pitched as "we will have it if your kid needs it, but based on test scores there's no one who currently needs it." There is a push for 7th graders to take Algebra this year though so that they'll be ready for 8th grade.

Anonymous wrote:The geometry thing is to my understanding still on the table. Possibly for some of next year's 7th graders or the the year after to begin taking algebra so that they can take geometry in 8th. In previous years they didn't have the capacity to offer this, but it may be possible in the future.

Yeah... That's not a good sign. The only way they're going to have geometry is if they re-think the sequence so that more kids are ready. And stop the attrition of high scoring math kids in the first place. I asked the HOS and got a pretty dismissive answer that it's for outlier kids. But... That's the kid I have.

Honestly, the middle school is tiny and does not have any significant cohort of kids performing well in math to offer this. Their differentiation is basically giving a kid some harder problems. It’s not just math.

It also doesn’t help the high attrition rate that middle school has and new kids coming in who are weak in math already

Right. Those things are connected. But if they were willing to accelerate in 5th and 6th, rather than just offer some side projects to keep the smarter kids busy, then the cohort of kids actually ready for Algebra I and geometry could be larger than it currently is.

It’s about priorities and reality is that it’s a low ROI and not worth it if you only have 1 or 2 kids. They are not going to hire another teacher for this or focus on them. The higher ROI is helping all the kids who are not doing well in math which is a much larger cohort.

And like any small middle school, but especially ITDS which is super tiny, offerings in everything is going to be very limited (classes/course selection, sports, extracurriculars, etc..)

The ROI is probably worth it. I'm at a smaller school that is offering algebra and geometry and has a much higher at-risk population. The students get pulled by a specialist. Instead of going to the regular 7th or 8th grade math class, the math specialist teaches that group. A separate teacher wasn't needed but the specialist's time was modified. Totally worth it.

They don’t have a math specialist. And even if they did get one which is doubtful, no the much bigger ROI is using that specialist to pull out kids who are below grade level for extra help in all the grades.

They have an instructional coach for math. Who already does pull outs with advanced kids. It's just matter of planning so that the pull out time can be spent moving them ahead in the curriculum rather than "enrichment" that may be fun but isn't anything new.

I haven't a clue how "ROI" is measured in your view. Is nothing advanced ever worthwhile? Sure lets ignore the smart kids until they leave. Success!

Of course all kids needs should be met. Sounds like you haven’t been in the system too long in DC because that’s not how it works here in most of the city. The focus is on the bottom in DCPS and many charters. That’s why you have to have a good cohort of kids performing at least on grade level.

If you are limited by money and budget constraints, your focus is on how to bring up the majority who are performing below grade level, not the 1 or 2 kids who have surpassed that standard. So I’m not surprised the HOS said they don’t have the math scores to support what you want.

The numbers don’t work from an administrative perspective who is looking at all students unlike you who are focused on 1. Like others have said, you need to move your kid to a bigger school that has a critical number of kids who are above grade level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Geometry was pitched as "we will have it if your kid needs it, but based on test scores there's no one who currently needs it." There is a push for 7th graders to take Algebra this year though so that they'll be ready for 8th grade.

Anonymous wrote:The geometry thing is to my understanding still on the table. Possibly for some of next year's 7th graders or the the year after to begin taking algebra so that they can take geometry in 8th. In previous years they didn't have the capacity to offer this, but it may be possible in the future.

Yeah... That's not a good sign. The only way they're going to have geometry is if they re-think the sequence so that more kids are ready. And stop the attrition of high scoring math kids in the first place. I asked the HOS and got a pretty dismissive answer that it's for outlier kids. But... That's the kid I have.

Honestly, the middle school is tiny and does not have any significant cohort of kids performing well in math to offer this. Their differentiation is basically giving a kid some harder problems. It’s not just math.

It also doesn’t help the high attrition rate that middle school has and new kids coming in who are weak in math already

Right. Those things are connected. But if they were willing to accelerate in 5th and 6th, rather than just offer some side projects to keep the smarter kids busy, then the cohort of kids actually ready for Algebra I and geometry could be larger than it currently is.

It’s about priorities and reality is that it’s a low ROI and not worth it if you only have 1 or 2 kids. They are not going to hire another teacher for this or focus on them. The higher ROI is helping all the kids who are not doing well in math which is a much larger cohort.

And like any small middle school, but especially ITDS which is super tiny, offerings in everything is going to be very limited (classes/course selection, sports, extracurriculars, etc..)

The ROI is probably worth it. I'm at a smaller school that is offering algebra and geometry and has a much higher at-risk population. The students get pulled by a specialist. Instead of going to the regular 7th or 8th grade math class, the math specialist teaches that group. A separate teacher wasn't needed but the specialist's time was modified. Totally worth it.

They don’t have a math specialist. And even if they did get one which is doubtful, no the much bigger ROI is using that specialist to pull out kids who are below grade level for extra help in all the grades.

They have an instructional coach for math. Who already does pull outs with advanced kids. It's just matter of planning so that the pull out time can be spent moving them ahead in the curriculum rather than "enrichment" that may be fun but isn't anything new.

I haven't a clue how "ROI" is measured in your view. Is nothing advanced ever worthwhile? Sure lets ignore the smart kids until they leave. Success!

Of course all kids needs should be met. Sounds like you haven’t been in the system too long in DC because that’s not how it works here in most of the city. The focus is on the bottom in DCPS and many charters. That’s why you have to have a good cohort of kids performing at least on grade level.

If you are limited by money and budget constraints, your focus is on how to bring up the majority who are performing below grade level, not the 1 or 2 kids who have surpassed that standard. So I’m not surprised the HOS said they don’t have the math scores to support what you want.

The numbers don’t work from an administrative perspective who is looking at all students unlike you who are focused on 1. Like others have said, you need to move your kid to a bigger school that has a critical number of kids who are above grade level.

You're missing the point. Even if below grade level kids are the highest priority, there are enough above-grade kids at ITDS to support some content. It's not just 1 or 2 kids. It's more like 10% of the class, so like 4 or 5 kids. But they are not reaching geometry because they aren't being offered Algebra I until 8th, and geometry was an elective so they couldn't do it without giving up their other electives for the entire year. If those rules were changed, more kids would do geometry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ITDS is lovely but like elementary school being extended 3-4 years. For high achieving kids in any domain (including extracurriculars), this is likely not the optimal model. For a middle of the road introvert, on the other hand, it’s ideal.

This thread has been interesting for me, a parent of two self-motivated, high-achieving kids who went through ITDS. One of my kids, now in 11th grade, is prepping to apply to T20 colleges. They were well prepared for everything they've encountered at SWW, even though, yes, ITDS didn't challenge my kids as much as I would have liked. (And as you'll read on other threads here, too, SWW is not the be-all-and-end-all--I bring it up just because it's the only high school my family has had experience with, and it's a school a lot of middle-school kids aspire to.) DC was able to catch up to the geometry-in-8th-grade types because of the option to take two math classes at once or do a summer math course.

Do I wish DC could have taken geometry in 8th grade? Yes, I do. But there were a load of other things that ITDS had in its favor that made it the right choice for our family.

ITDS is not perfect. Anyone who thinks it is is fooling themselves. However, ITDS's middle school is also not anything like "elementary school being extended 3-4 years" nor is it uniformly poor for "high achieving kids in any domain."

Please, potential ITDS parents who are reading this thread, take everything with a huge grain of salt. None of these all-or-nothing statements would hold up to even the tiniest amount of pressure.

Thank you PP. I just wish my kid's classroom time at ITDS were being more effectively used so that a summer course would not be necessary, and the kid would not be under-challenged and the teachers not struggling so hard with behavior management.

I'm "grain of salt" PP. And I completely agree with what you say here!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ITDS is lovely but like elementary school being extended 3-4 years. For high achieving kids in any domain (including extracurriculars), this is likely not the optimal model. For a middle of the road introvert, on the other hand, it’s ideal.

This thread has been interesting for me, a parent of two self-motivated, high-achieving kids who went through ITDS. One of my kids, now in 11th grade, is prepping to apply to T20 colleges. They were well prepared for everything they've encountered at SWW, even though, yes, ITDS didn't challenge my kids as much as I would have liked. (And as you'll read on other threads here, too, SWW is not the be-all-and-end-all--I bring it up just because it's the only high school my family has had experience with, and it's a school a lot of middle-school kids aspire to.) DC was able to catch up to the geometry-in-8th-grade types because of the option to take two math classes at once or do a summer math course.

Do I wish DC could have taken geometry in 8th grade? Yes, I do. But there were a load of other things that ITDS had in its favor that made it the right choice for our family.

ITDS is not perfect. Anyone who thinks it is is fooling themselves. However, ITDS's middle school is also not anything like "elementary school being extended 3-4 years" nor is it uniformly poor for "high achieving kids in any domain."

Please, potential ITDS parents who are reading this thread, take everything with a huge grain of salt. None of these all-or-nothing statements would hold up to even the tiniest amount of pressure.

I disagree. I don't think PP meant that the substantive work was akin to elementary school, but that the experience was... and I think that's correct. When you have a school as small as ITDS middle, it really does feel a lot more like an elementary school (as many small privates' middle schools do as well) than a standard middle school experience. That can absolutely be a good thing for many kids, by the way. Middle school is the worst time of many kids' lives. But a school that small is never going to have as many options for outliers in any direction/in any domain.