Middle school options

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those worried about screens, there is a huge movement to scale back or eliminate screens up until high school. Not sure if/when that will happen or what it will look like. My guess is they'll be wildly successful for lower elementary, but until all us parents get off our smartphones, it's unlikely to happen for teens/tweens.

The families fighting to get rid of screens are going to run into resistance from a large group of DCPS families who want MORE tech in schools and view it as a safety and equity issue.

If you have only interacted with families similar to yours at upper-SES elementary schools or charters, you may not realize this group even exists. But if your kid goes to MS and HS in DC, you will learn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those worried about screens, there is a huge movement to scale back or eliminate screens up until high school. Not sure if/when that will happen or what it will look like. My guess is they'll be wildly successful for lower elementary, but until all us parents get off our smartphones, it's unlikely to happen for teens/tweens.

The families fighting to get rid of screens are going to run into resistance from a large group of DCPS families who want MORE tech in schools and view it as a safety and equity issue.

If you have only interacted with families similar to yours at upper-SES elementary schools or charters, you may not realize this group even exists. But if your kid goes to MS and HS in DC, you will learn.

If it’s the same folks who buy their kids smartphones at age 8 and give them unfettered access to TikTok because they haven’t bothered to pay attention to all the emerging research about kids and screen addiction, that’s unfortunate. It feels like those folks are all 10 years behind us and see the phones as a status thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those worried about screens, there is a huge movement to scale back or eliminate screens up until high school. Not sure if/when that will happen or what it will look like. My guess is they'll be wildly successful for lower elementary, but until all us parents get off our smartphones, it's unlikely to happen for teens/tweens.

The families fighting to get rid of screens are going to run into resistance from a large group of DCPS families who want MORE tech in schools and view it as a safety and equity issue.

If you have only interacted with families similar to yours at upper-SES elementary schools or charters, you may not realize this group even exists. But if your kid goes to MS and HS in DC, you will learn.

Performative nonsense. Regressive, performative nonsense. You are talking about people who argue that it is classist and racist to create classroom environments conducive to quality educations for all. "Equity" is apparently best served for low-SES and POC by low quality educational outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those worried about screens, there is a huge movement to scale back or eliminate screens up until high school. Not sure if/when that will happen or what it will look like. My guess is they'll be wildly successful for lower elementary, but until all us parents get off our smartphones, it's unlikely to happen for teens/tweens.

The families fighting to get rid of screens are going to run into resistance from a large group of DCPS families who want MORE tech in schools and view it as a safety and equity issue.

If you have only interacted with families similar to yours at upper-SES elementary schools or charters, you may not realize this group even exists. But if your kid goes to MS and HS in DC, you will learn.

Performative nonsense. Regressive, performative nonsense. You are talking about people who argue that it is classist and racist to create classroom environments conducive to quality educations for all. "Equity" is apparently best served for low-SES and POC by low quality educational outcomes.

Not performative. I am anti screen.

I'm saying that when your kids are in classrooms with large number of lower-SES kids, or if your kids attend a school where many parents have safety and access concerns, you will be surprised to discover that many of these families don't share your priorities. They want their kids to have phones in classrooms so that they can text or call their kids during the school day for safety reasons (also because it's more convenient). You will also find families who are concerned that if their kids don't get 1:1 devices or dedicated time with technology at school, their kids will fall behind wealthier kids who have more at-home technology access.

And none of it's performative. It's just how people feel. It's a different set of priorities based on a different experience. You can argue with it if you want, you can call them uninformed or behind the times, but if the majority of parents at your school feel this way, you aren't winning any debates over screens in classrooms.

Except for a small number of public MSs and HSs in DC, there will be a substantial number of families at any given school who have this position. It's one of the reasons DCI is so screen heavy -- lots of DCI families actively want more tech in schools and even viewed that as a selling point for the school originally. There is a divide between the upper-SES, mostly white and Asian families who have come to believe too much tech is a negative, and lower-SES, mostly black families who view it as an important safety and equity concern for kids to have more and better access to tech.

This is why we are moving out of DC for MS and HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those worried about screens, there is a huge movement to scale back or eliminate screens up until high school. Not sure if/when that will happen or what it will look like. My guess is they'll be wildly successful for lower elementary, but until all us parents get off our smartphones, it's unlikely to happen for teens/tweens.

The families fighting to get rid of screens are going to run into resistance from a large group of DCPS families who want MORE tech in schools and view it as a safety and equity issue.

If you have only interacted with families similar to yours at upper-SES elementary schools or charters, you may not realize this group even exists. But if your kid goes to MS and HS in DC, you will learn.

If it’s the same folks who buy their kids smartphones at age 8 and give them unfettered access to TikTok because they haven’t bothered to pay attention to all the emerging research about kids and screen addiction, that’s unfortunate. It feels like those folks are all 10 years behind us and see the phones as a status thing.

In some cases, sure.

In other cases, it's parents whose kids have attended schools that have had to be locked down repeatedly due to shootings, and want their kids to have phones so they can call them in these instances. Or whose kids have to travel through more dangerous neighborhoods to and from school. Or kids who are shuffled between multiple caregivers throughout the week so a phone is a practical necessity to make sure the kid knows who is picking them up or where they are spending the night. Or parents who genuinely believe that giving their kids phones and tablets at a young age will help their kids become native tech users and it will benefit them down the road in school and work.

Assume these parents are just stupid or don't care about their kids at your own peril. If your goal is less tech in schools, I would suggest taking a different approach, but put to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those worried about screens, there is a huge movement to scale back or eliminate screens up until high school. Not sure if/when that will happen or what it will look like. My guess is they'll be wildly successful for lower elementary, but until all us parents get off our smartphones, it's unlikely to happen for teens/tweens.

The families fighting to get rid of screens are going to run into resistance from a large group of DCPS families who want MORE tech in schools and view it as a safety and equity issue.

If you have only interacted with families similar to yours at upper-SES elementary schools or charters, you may not realize this group even exists. But if your kid goes to MS and HS in DC, you will learn.

If it’s the same folks who buy their kids smartphones at age 8 and give them unfettered access to TikTok because they haven’t bothered to pay attention to all the emerging research about kids and screen addiction, that’s unfortunate. It feels like those folks are all 10 years behind us and see the phones as a status thing.

In some cases, sure.

In other cases, it's parents whose kids have attended schools that have had to be locked down repeatedly due to shootings, and want their kids to have phones so they can call them in these instances. Or whose kids have to travel through more dangerous neighborhoods to and from school. Or kids who are shuffled between multiple caregivers throughout the week so a phone is a practical necessity to make sure the kid knows who is picking them up or where they are spending the night. Or parents who genuinely believe that giving their kids phones and tablets at a young age will help their kids become native tech users and it will benefit them down the road in school and work.

Assume these parents are just stupid or don't care about their kids at your own peril. If your goal is less tech in schools, I would suggest taking a different approach, but put to you.

Fascinating. My kid’s majority Black high school has a no-phones policy, and phone lockers outside the metal detectors. I’ve never heard any pushback about it on safety or equity grounds or for any other reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of DCPS schools have much more sparing computer use than DCI. DCI issues each kid a Chromebook they use in every class. SH certainly does not. My kid takes notes by hand in classes and some teachers (like the science teacher) never uses the laptop cart at all. Other middle schools have issues, but DCi is a huge outlier in this respect.

Ok, I absolutely hate my kid's Chromebook which becomes yet another screen to have to monitor the use of at home. I did not know other MS don't use laptops. It is to the point where we have to stand behind our kid to watch them while they do homework because otherwise they are probably not doing any homework on that screen. I don't even know what they're doing but it is not homework.

I know parents have pushed back on this and the principal says that for next year a certain percentage of class time has to be off laptop. However, I do not know if this will be followed at all. I do know that my kid started to copy down by hand certain things to study, so perhaps they were telling kids to do this. In English, they were given a book to read and then no one read it so they actually listened to the audio book and followed along during class time.

It is really a lot coming directly from low-screen use schools like LAMB. It's like a drug being handed out.

Lunchtimes at DCI are now screen-free but only certain days of the week, and kids can always go to "office hours" and use the laptops.

This is a huge reason we opted to send our kids elsewhere even though they were at a DCI feeder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those worried about screens, there is a huge movement to scale back or eliminate screens up until high school. Not sure if/when that will happen or what it will look like. My guess is they'll be wildly successful for lower elementary, but until all us parents get off our smartphones, it's unlikely to happen for teens/tweens.

The families fighting to get rid of screens are going to run into resistance from a large group of DCPS families who want MORE tech in schools and view it as a safety and equity issue.

If you have only interacted with families similar to yours at upper-SES elementary schools or charters, you may not realize this group even exists. But if your kid goes to MS and HS in DC, you will learn.

Performative nonsense. Regressive, performative nonsense. You are talking about people who argue that it is classist and racist to create classroom environments conducive to quality educations for all. "Equity" is apparently best served for low-SES and POC by low quality educational outcomes.

Not performative. I am anti screen.

I'm saying that when your kids are in classrooms with large number of lower-SES kids, or if your kids attend a school where many parents have safety and access concerns, you will be surprised to discover that many of these families don't share your priorities. They want their kids to have phones in classrooms so that they can text or call their kids during the school day for safety reasons (also because it's more convenient). You will also find families who are concerned that if their kids don't get 1:1 devices or dedicated time with technology at school, their kids will fall behind wealthier kids who have more at-home technology access.

And none of it's performative. It's just how people feel. It's a different set of priorities based on a different experience. You can argue with it if you want, you can call them uninformed or behind the times, but if the majority of parents at your school feel this way, you aren't winning any debates over screens in classrooms.

Except for a small number of public MSs and HSs in DC, there will be a substantial number of families at any given school who have this position. It's one of the reasons DCI is so screen heavy -- lots of DCI families actively want more tech in schools and even viewed that as a selling point for the school originally. There is a divide between the upper-SES, mostly white and Asian families who have come to believe too much tech is a negative, and lower-SES, mostly black families who view it as an important safety and equity concern for kids to have more and better access to tech.

This is why we are moving out of DC for MS and HS.

Damn you are so right, although I have not heard about this with regard to DCI. Mostly, I'm hearing the admin saying that parents are pushing against the technology use and phones aren't allowed. I am now going to try to investigate if this is still true (it may be changing).

However, I did get in an argument with a parent a few years ago who claimed that his child in grade 2 or 3 required an active Apple Watch connection to himself, and distracted all the kids in the after school group by calling and talking to people throughout the camp every day. The leaders would not ban the child from having this connection even though they were easily able to be reached themselves, by any parent or kid at all times. So, I know what you mean "safety".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those worried about screens, there is a huge movement to scale back or eliminate screens up until high school. Not sure if/when that will happen or what it will look like. My guess is they'll be wildly successful for lower elementary, but until all us parents get off our smartphones, it's unlikely to happen for teens/tweens.

The families fighting to get rid of screens are going to run into resistance from a large group of DCPS families who want MORE tech in schools and view it as a safety and equity issue.

If you have only interacted with families similar to yours at upper-SES elementary schools or charters, you may not realize this group even exists. But if your kid goes to MS and HS in DC, you will learn.

Performative nonsense. Regressive, performative nonsense. You are talking about people who argue that it is classist and racist to create classroom environments conducive to quality educations for all. "Equity" is apparently best served for low-SES and POC by low quality educational outcomes.

Not performative. I am anti screen.

I'm saying that when your kids are in classrooms with large number of lower-SES kids, or if your kids attend a school where many parents have safety and access concerns, you will be surprised to discover that many of these families don't share your priorities. They want their kids to have phones in classrooms so that they can text or call their kids during the school day for safety reasons (also because it's more convenient). You will also find families who are concerned that if their kids don't get 1:1 devices or dedicated time with technology at school, their kids will fall behind wealthier kids who have more at-home technology access.

And none of it's performative. It's just how people feel. It's a different set of priorities based on a different experience. You can argue with it if you want, you can call them uninformed or behind the times, but if the majority of parents at your school feel this way, you aren't winning any debates over screens in classrooms.

Except for a small number of public MSs and HSs in DC, there will be a substantial number of families at any given school who have this position. It's one of the reasons DCI is so screen heavy -- lots of DCI families actively want more tech in schools and even viewed that as a selling point for the school originally. There is a divide between the upper-SES, mostly white and Asian families who have come to believe too much tech is a negative, and lower-SES, mostly black families who view it as an important safety and equity concern for kids to have more and better access to tech.

This is why we are moving out of DC for MS and HS.

You nailed it, PP. Like your post a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those worried about screens, there is a huge movement to scale back or eliminate screens up until high school. Not sure if/when that will happen or what it will look like. My guess is they'll be wildly successful for lower elementary, but until all us parents get off our smartphones, it's unlikely to happen for teens/tweens.

The families fighting to get rid of screens are going to run into resistance from a large group of DCPS families who want MORE tech in schools and view it as a safety and equity issue.

If you have only interacted with families similar to yours at upper-SES elementary schools or charters, you may not realize this group even exists. But if your kid goes to MS and HS in DC, you will learn.

Performative nonsense. Regressive, performative nonsense. You are talking about people who argue that it is classist and racist to create classroom environments conducive to quality educations for all. "Equity" is apparently best served for low-SES and POC by low quality educational outcomes.

Not performative. I am anti screen.

I'm saying that when your kids are in classrooms with large number of lower-SES kids, or if your kids attend a school where many parents have safety and access concerns, you will be surprised to discover that many of these families don't share your priorities. They want their kids to have phones in classrooms so that they can text or call their kids during the school day for safety reasons (also because it's more convenient). You will also find families who are concerned that if their kids don't get 1:1 devices or dedicated time with technology at school, their kids will fall behind wealthier kids who have more at-home technology access.

And none of it's performative. It's just how people feel. It's a different set of priorities based on a different experience. You can argue with it if you want, you can call them uninformed or behind the times, but if the majority of parents at your school feel this way, you aren't winning any debates over screens in classrooms.

Except for a small number of public MSs and HSs in DC, there will be a substantial number of families at any given school who have this position. It's one of the reasons DCI is so screen heavy -- lots of DCI families actively want more tech in schools and even viewed that as a selling point for the school originally. There is a divide between the upper-SES, mostly white and Asian families who have come to believe too much tech is a negative, and lower-SES, mostly black families who view it as an important safety and equity concern for kids to have more and better access to tech.

This is why we are moving out of DC for MS and HS.

You sound like a well meaning UMC white lady. No clue where you are getting your information from but FFS, temper your liberal guilt and use your brain. The safety argument is NOT an at-risk POC concern. That's something Lululemon wearing rich white folks argue. Ironically because your snowflakes have to [GASP] be in a classroom with these low SES kids you performatively care about. For the at-risk populations you're bending over backwards to "be allies with", schools are probably the safest environment for our kids.

I'm guessing you don't have any friends who are POC, so let me be that friend for you. It is NOT racist to call BS or tell someone their argument makes no sense, even if they are black!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those worried about screens, there is a huge movement to scale back or eliminate screens up until high school. Not sure if/when that will happen or what it will look like. My guess is they'll be wildly successful for lower elementary, but until all us parents get off our smartphones, it's unlikely to happen for teens/tweens.

The families fighting to get rid of screens are going to run into resistance from a large group of DCPS families who want MORE tech in schools and view it as a safety and equity issue.

If you have only interacted with families similar to yours at upper-SES elementary schools or charters, you may not realize this group even exists. But if your kid goes to MS and HS in DC, you will learn.

Performative nonsense. Regressive, performative nonsense. You are talking about people who argue that it is classist and racist to create classroom environments conducive to quality educations for all. "Equity" is apparently best served for low-SES and POC by low quality educational outcomes.

Not performative. I am anti screen.

I'm saying that when your kids are in classrooms with large number of lower-SES kids, or if your kids attend a school where many parents have safety and access concerns, you will be surprised to discover that many of these families don't share your priorities. They want their kids to have phones in classrooms so that they can text or call their kids during the school day for safety reasons (also because it's more convenient). You will also find families who are concerned that if their kids don't get 1:1 devices or dedicated time with technology at school, their kids will fall behind wealthier kids who have more at-home technology access.

And none of it's performative. It's just how people feel. It's a different set of priorities based on a different experience. You can argue with it if you want, you can call them uninformed or behind the times, but if the majority of parents at your school feel this way, you aren't winning any debates over screens in classrooms.

Except for a small number of public MSs and HSs in DC, there will be a substantial number of families at any given school who have this position. It's one of the reasons DCI is so screen heavy -- lots of DCI families actively want more tech in schools and even viewed that as a selling point for the school originally. There is a divide between the upper-SES, mostly white and Asian families who have come to believe too much tech is a negative, and lower-SES, mostly black families who view it as an important safety and equity concern for kids to have more and better access to tech.

This is why we are moving out of DC for MS and HS.

You sound like a well meaning UMC white lady. No clue where you are getting your information from but FFS, temper your liberal guilt and use your brain. The safety argument is NOT an at-risk POC concern. That's something Lululemon wearing rich white folks argue. Ironically because your snowflakes have to [GASP] be in a classroom with these low SES kids you performatively care about. For the at-risk populations you're bending over backwards to "be allies with", schools are probably the safest environment for our kids.

I'm guessing you don't have any friends who are POC, so let me be that friend for you. It is NOT racist to call BS or tell someone their argument makes no sense, even if they are black!

Yeah - it’s certainly the case that some families are not yet on the anti-screen page and that might have SES dimensions, but the idea that such families would present some big pushback against policies to curb tech/ed tech in schools just isn’t true.

[Anonymous]

To divert this conversation back to the practical side briefly, where does Deal fall on the screen time spectrum? Our Deal feeder is low screens (besides all of the testing…), but in all of these conversations I see input from Deal parents.

[Anonymous]

Oyster Adams

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t our plan but our child is about to to finish MS at ITDS and she has truly loved it. It’s not perfect but for a middle schooler to really love school is huge. And they do offer more acceleration in MS than ES. It’s been a good experience.

BASIS is a school that parents love. ITDS is a school that kids love.

[Anonymous]

They want their kids to have phones in classrooms so that they can text or call their kids during the school day for safety reasons (also because it's more convenient).

Accurate, my DCPS MS has a small number of students who have notes that allow them to have their phones all day. They wear large headphones, listen to music and videos, walk around singing, facetime, and make dance recordings all day.

You will also find families who are concerned that if their kids don't get 1:1 devices or dedicated time with technology at school, their kids will fall behind wealthier kids who have more at-home technology access.

Had a family transfer from MD to DCPS, the first thing they asked was when their child got their Chromebook to take home.