MacFarland MS?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Initial IB certification takes several years and usually a staff member dedicated to the process.

Yes, this what they always say. But, is that their reason for not pursuing it?

Who knows? So far as I know the only DCPS IB high school programs are at Banneker and Eastern and there seems to be a strong push toward AP city-wide. Maybe they just prefer paying $ to the College Board instead of the IB folks?

[Anonymous]

I don't think saying that it would take years and a staff person is a good enough reason NOT to. Those are perfect reasons for DCPS to declare that they will make the commitment now and get the ball rolling and will make the necessary investments. Duke Ellington can be state of the art and go way over budget but a newly planned middle school (or a reopened one) in a Ward that doesn't have a single stand alone middle school isn't worth the time, effort, paperwork and funding? What a cop out.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Initial IB certification takes several years and usually a staff member dedicated to the process.

Yes, this what they always say. But, is that their reason for not pursuing it?

Who knows? So far as I know the only DCPS IB high school programs are at Banneker and Eastern and there seems to be a strong push toward AP city-wide. Maybe they just prefer paying $ to the College Board instead of the IB folks?

Presumably, someone at DCPS knows which is why I asked Andy if he has insight into their thinking. BTW, given the fact that MacFarland is a middle school, the most relevant comparison is Deal. Since some neighborhoods are being reassigned from Deal to MacFarland, that makes Deal's example even more relevant.

If DCPS's excuse is that IB certification will take too long and require a staff person, I think a lot of people will feel let down (to put it mildly). I hope they have a much better explanation than that. They certainly don't want to start this process out by saying IB was okay for the WotP school, but will take too long for MacFarland.

[calexander]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Initial IB certification takes several years and usually a staff member dedicated to the process.

Yes, this what they always say. But, is that their reason for not pursuing it?

Who knows? So far as I know the only DCPS IB high school programs are at Banneker and Eastern and there seems to be a strong push toward AP city-wide. Maybe they just prefer paying $ to the College Board instead of the IB folks?

Presumably, someone at DCPS knows which is why I asked Andy if he has insight into their thinking. BTW, given the fact that MacFarland is a middle school, the most relevant comparison is Deal. Since some neighborhoods are being reassigned from Deal to MacFarland, that makes Deal's example even more relevant.

If DCPS's excuse is that IB certification will take too long and require a staff person, I think a lot of people will feel let down (to put it mildly). I hope they have a much better explanation than that. They certainly don't want to start this process out by saying IB was okay for the WotP school, but will take too long for MacFarland.

IB comes up at every meeting. At the last meeting, the moderator stated that there are Pro-IB and Anti-IB camps in the Central Office. She also said that student performance in the "IB schools" hasn't been as good as they'd hoped. Perhaps we need to ask for a breakdown on that; I wasn't aware that there are enough IB schools in DCPS to make that kind of judgement. Or, come to think of it, maybe she is talking about the number of students (at Banneker?) who successfully complete the IB Diploma. I will ask.

Shepherd has PYP and I am personally in favor of it.

Christopher

[Anonymous]

I was at the meeting last night, and think IB at MacFarland and Roosevelt would be the perfect compliment to "international focus" DCPS claims to want at Roosevelt and MacFarland. It would be a strong signal to parents that DCPS is taking the push to improve middle school offering seriously and to make the non-dual language strand at the schools attractive. There were a number of parents at the meeting last night (including me) who are concerned - based on our experience at the elementary level at schools with DL and non-DL strands - that there is friction between the two strands, so beefing up the non-DL strand is important to for a cohesive community.

[calexander]

Anonymous wrote:Why didn't they answer these questions:

If the DL program were not here, what would make the program attractive to people in this community?

Some of us have options to go to Deal what’s the in pitch to us and those families?

Well when you talk about marketing, what kind of advanced programming are you marketing to non dual language parents?

... So they may have advanced math and we should do their marketing for them? They could really work on this.

These are great questions and DCPS is definitely on the hook for answering them. In addition to posting them here, I'd suggest reaching out to both DCPS.Planning 'at' dc.gov and @DCPSPlanning. I can say with confidence that those messages are being read, and that has not always (usually?) been the case with DCPS.

The team that is working on this project has an unbelievable number of competing interests to balance, so the more they hear from families in the community, the more likely the final product will be something that most of us can be happy with.

[arowe]

I'll try to offer in unpolished form a few reasons why I think DCPS isn't particularly enamored of IB, some of which they might state publicly and some of which they might not. Some of these may be overstatements and some may just be off base, but they're what I think is going on.

1. It's apparently done very differently from normal courses, so you have to hire and train up a corps of teachers who are willing to put in the extra work and extra professional development time to do it, and they have to stay committed to one school for some serious time to make it really go. DCPS already has challenges getting and keeping staff.
2. While IB sounds great from a superficial first glance, it doesn't seem to add a tremendous amount of value within the context of DCPS. To be blunt, they put it into Eastern, etc., and for what? It's harder for everyone and it doesn't seem like any educational magic has happened.
3. There are the costs and ramp up time, as others have mentioned.
4. DCPS has other ideas for programmatic improvement to benefit student outcomes that don't involve making this radical a change in teaching and learning.
5. DCPS believes they can implement global education and dual language programming without having to sign up for the complexity of IB.
6. The people who are asking for it are a tiny minority who typically vote with their feet to not attend the schools where they suggest expensive, disruptive new programs of dubious benefit to the majority of students.
7. DCPS folks believe that parents and local homeowners asking for it are just looking for a proxy for quality, know little to nothing about the program, and DCPS teaching and learning is fundamentally sound (with the unstated implications that motivated students respond well to it in the right settings (i.e., Tenleytown) and unprepared students will fail or avoid IB, particularly where the gap between current student ability and challenge presented is yawning).
8. Those asking for it are effectively, if not openly, asking for school-level segregation/tracking instead of inter-school segregation, and possibly even magnet-type separation from the community. At minimum, they are seeking a way for some children to stay in an advanced track or tracks separate from the majority who are not at grade level and minimize interaction, at least on an educational basis.
9. Maybe - maybe - they think that niche educational programming at odds with the norms for DCPS is one of the reasons for charters and they should do that kind of thing, not DCPS, which has to shoulder the burden of educating those who don't want niche programming.

I'm trying to lay out other folks' thinking, so it's pretty likely some of this is not right. But I think these are all things people should recognize if they want to make IB a priority for new school programs. I think there are a lot of positives that can be said about IB - this article was inspiring to me - http://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/stunning-surge-in-graduation-rate-as-rainier-beach-gamble-pays-off/ but I don't realistically believe DCPS is going to go down the road to IB at MacFarland (or Roosevelt) of its own accord.

[jsteele]

Thanks Andy! I appreciate your candor. I can't speak for others, but I think IB would be a good step because I drank the Kool Aid when our older son went to Deal and became a believer in the program. Furthermore, I think it provides a very important third-party stamp of approval regarding the quality of what the school offers. While I think I am at least a step above the "know little to nothing about the program" category, it is true that I am not an education expert. If DCPS can accomplish the same goals by a different means, I'm all ears. But, at this point, I am still not really buying their reasons for opposing IB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was at the meeting last night, and think IB at MacFarland and Roosevelt would be the perfect compliment to "international focus" DCPS claims to want at Roosevelt and MacFarland. It would be a strong signal to parents that DCPS is taking the push to improve middle school offering seriously and to make the non-dual language strand at the schools attractive. There were a number of parents at the meeting last night (including me) who are concerned - based on our experience at the elementary level at schools with DL and non-DL strands - that there is friction between the two strands, so beefing up the non-DL strand is important to for a cohesive community.

Totally agree. Schools with dual language and non-dual language strands end up feeling like preferred and non-preferred strands unless resources are distributed equally in support of them. Unless DCPS genuinely wants MacFarland to be a dual language school only, it has to be thinking now how it's going to roll out the non-dual language track in a way that doesn't make it feel like an afterthought. Someone asked for patience up thread, explaining that the MacFarland facility won't open until 17-18, but any of us with children know how quickly that will come. DCPS should not half-ass this and claim "too much work"...if the Chancellor and the Mayor want MacFarland to succeed they need to dedicate additional manpower now.

[Anonymous]

arowe wrote:I'll try to offer in unpolished form a few reasons why I think DCPS isn't particularly enamored of IB, some of which they might state publicly and some of which they might not. Some of these may be overstatements and some may just be off base, but they're what I think is going on.

1. It's apparently done very differently from normal courses, so you have to hire and train up a corps of teachers who are willing to put in the extra work and extra professional development time to do it, and they have to stay committed to one school for some serious time to make it really go. DCPS already has challenges getting and keeping staff.
2. While IB sounds great from a superficial first glance, it doesn't seem to add a tremendous amount of value within the context of DCPS. To be blunt, they put it into Eastern, etc., and for what? It's harder for everyone and it doesn't seem like any educational magic has happened.
3. There are the costs and ramp up time, as others have mentioned.
4. DCPS has other ideas for programmatic improvement to benefit student outcomes that don't involve making this radical a change in teaching and learning.
5. DCPS believes they can implement global education and dual language programming without having to sign up for the complexity of IB.
6. The people who are asking for it are a tiny minority who typically vote with their feet to not attend the schools where they suggest expensive, disruptive new programs of dubious benefit to the majority of students.
7. DCPS folks believe that parents and local homeowners asking for it are just looking for a proxy for quality, know little to nothing about the program, and DCPS teaching and learning is fundamentally sound (with the unstated implications that motivated students respond well to it in the right settings (i.e., Tenleytown) and unprepared students will fail or avoid IB, particularly where the gap between current student ability and challenge presented is yawning).
8. Those asking for it are effectively, if not openly, asking for school-level segregation/tracking instead of inter-school segregation, and possibly even magnet-type separation from the community. At minimum, they are seeking a way for some children to stay in an advanced track or tracks separate from the majority who are not at grade level and minimize interaction, at least on an educational basis.
9. Maybe - maybe - they think that niche educational programming at odds with the norms for DCPS is one of the reasons for charters and they should do that kind of thing, not DCPS, which has to shoulder the burden of educating those who don't want niche programming.

I'm trying to lay out other folks' thinking, so it's pretty likely some of this is not right. But I think these are all things people should recognize if they want to make IB a priority for new school programs. I think there are a lot of positives that can be said about IB - this article was inspiring to me - http://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/stunning-surge-in-graduation-rate-as-rainier-beach-gamble-pays-off/ but I don't realistically believe DCPS is going to go down the road to IB at MacFarland (or Roosevelt) of its own accord.

Thanks for trying to offer some insight, Andy. Very much appreciated. Curious if you have any additional insight about DCPS's "other ideas for programmatic improvement?"

[Anonymous]

Right now it's just talk but let's hope for the best for MacFarland. The old MacFarland was so scary that the parents above us at our EOTP elementary lobbied and got mobile units and a 5th grade added just so they wouldn't have to send their kids there.

[arowe]

Stuff like the Cornerstones, etc. The folks at DCPS can tell you a lot about this, I can only mention a little.

[Anonymous]

arowe wrote:I'll try to offer in unpolished form a few reasons why I think DCPS isn't particularly enamored of IB, some of which they might state publicly and some of which they might not. Some of these may be overstatements and some may just be off base, but they're what I think is going on.

1. It's apparently done very differently from normal courses, so you have to hire and train up a corps of teachers who are willing to put in the extra work and extra professional development time to do it, and they have to stay committed to one school for some serious time to make it really go. DCPS already has challenges getting and keeping staff.
2. While IB sounds great from a superficial first glance, it doesn't seem to add a tremendous amount of value within the context of DCPS. To be blunt, they put it into Eastern, etc., and for what? It's harder for everyone and it doesn't seem like any educational magic has happened.
3. There are the costs and ramp up time, as others have mentioned.
4. DCPS has other ideas for programmatic improvement to benefit student outcomes that don't involve making this radical a change in teaching and learning.
5. DCPS believes they can implement global education and dual language programming without having to sign up for the complexity of IB.
6. The people who are asking for it are a tiny minority who typically vote with their feet to not attend the schools where they suggest expensive, disruptive new programs of dubious benefit to the majority of students.
7. DCPS folks believe that parents and local homeowners asking for it are just looking for a proxy for quality, know little to nothing about the program, and DCPS teaching and learning is fundamentally sound (with the unstated implications that motivated students respond well to it in the right settings (i.e., Tenleytown) and unprepared students will fail or avoid IB, particularly where the gap between current student ability and challenge presented is yawning).
8. Those asking for it are effectively, if not openly, asking for school-level segregation/tracking instead of inter-school segregation, and possibly even magnet-type separation from the community. At minimum, they are seeking a way for some children to stay in an advanced track or tracks separate from the majority who are not at grade level and minimize interaction, at least on an educational basis.
9. Maybe - maybe - they think that niche educational programming at odds with the norms for DCPS is one of the reasons for charters and they should do that kind of thing, not DCPS, which has to shoulder the burden of educating those who don't want niche programming.

I'm trying to lay out other folks' thinking, so it's pretty likely some of this is not right. But I think these are all things people should recognize if they want to make IB a priority for new school programs. I think there are a lot of positives that can be said about IB - this article was inspiring to me - http://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/stunning-surge-in-graduation-rate-as-rainier-beach-gamble-pays-off/ but I don't realistically believe DCPS is going to go down the road to IB at MacFarland (or Roosevelt) of its own accord.

TL;DR: Capitol Hill parents asked for IB, we gave it to them and they still didn't show up.

[Anonymous]

arowe wrote:Stuff like the Cornerstones, etc. The folks at DCPS can tell you a lot about this, I can only mention a little.

Thanks. Interesting to me as Cornerstones is a program being paid for in large part by a foundation grant to the DCPS. Even more interests to balance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

arowe wrote:Stuff like the Cornerstones, etc. The folks at DCPS can tell you a lot about this, I can only mention a little.

Thanks. Interesting to me as Cornerstones is a program being paid for in large part by a foundation grant to the DCPS. Even more interests to balance.

And an effort that is brand-new and being funded by a foundation for most part should not be considered the basis of a DCPS effort at a new school. Cornerstones should be an add-on, a bonus. Only time will tell if it had any impact at all beyond second graders learning how to ride a bike (which I think is great by the way). What's not forget but the guy he launched cornerstones is a buddy of the Chancellor.