Wilson honors for all - how has it worked?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students that are getting a 1 and 2 on PARCC have no business leaving middle school

They should stay in 8th grade an extra year and catch up

then 9th grade can actually be taught on grade level

Promotion and PARCC are not related. And there is no data showing that holding a student back in fact helps them catch up.

If you want a version of that policy, send your kid to BASIS.

What's wrong with BASIS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want your students peers to be on the same level or higher, then send your kid to Banneker or Walls.

A comprehensive DCPS high school is different. You have choices.

Says who, you? Why should we let you lay down the law on comprehensive DCPS high schools failing to challenge the brightest and hardworking kids? This DC resident of several decades says total BS. Wilson can serve all its students well. Honors classes for all in 9th grade aren't helping. What's "different" is the PC rot that infects our public school system to a degree not seen elsewhere.

It's not helpful to define policy choices that you don't agree with as "PC rot." The fact is that there have been lots of well documented issues with how tiered classes have been implemented in a lot of places, and experts in the field have developed a variety of responses to that, including differentiation and mandatory college-prep curriculum. In other words, the people that you perceive as bowing to some kind of PC political agenda are, in fact, likely trying to design policy based on research. The problem is that it's apparently research from 20-30 years ago, and it seems a lot has been learned since then.

A PP on this thread posted what seemed like some very compelling more recent research indicating that Chicago's attempt to implement something similar to "honors for all" did not, in fact, improve outcomes. And, s/he posted additional recent research suggesting that tiered classes can be implemented in an equitable way that improves outcomes for all students, especially poor and minority students. I think it's a lot more productive to discuss educational policy in those terms -- what does the research tell us best practices are and how can they be implemented at Wilson? I think approaching administrators with your concerns and with research in hand will get a lot farther than questioning their motives on an Internet forum or assuming nefarious political motives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do we expect teachers at this level to do significant differentiation? Of course the rightest kids will be ignored. I feel sorry for teachers and it’s no wonder they are leaving the profession in droves. DCPS has plenty of 9th graders who still read on a ; th grade level. Sorry I don’t want my wasting time in the same class.

Exactly. Our experience is that the vast majority of Wilson teachers are too busy even to provide comments on papers.

[Anonymous]

A little common sense in the face of "PC rot" goes a long way. No secret that most ed researchers go at their work armed with thinly disguised political agendas.

We can all pretend that overworked Wilson teachers can effectively engage students working at a 6th or 7th grade level in the same classes as students capable of college work, but it's nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want your students peers to be on the same level or higher, then send your kid to Banneker or Walls.

A comprehensive DCPS high school is different. You have choices.

Says who, you? Why should we let you lay down the law on comprehensive DCPS high schools failing to challenge the brightest and hardworking kids? This DC resident of several decades says total BS. Wilson can serve all its students well. Honors classes for all in 9th grade aren't helping. What's "different" is the PC rot that infects our public school system to a degree not seen elsewhere.

It's not helpful to define policy choices that you don't agree with as "PC rot." The fact is that there have been lots of well documented issues with how tiered classes have been implemented in a lot of places, and experts in the field have developed a variety of responses to that, including differentiation and mandatory college-prep curriculum. In other words, the people that you perceive as bowing to some kind of PC political agenda are, in fact, likely trying to design policy based on research. The problem is that it's apparently research from 20-30 years ago, and it seems a lot has been learned since then.

A PP on this thread posted what seemed like some very compelling more recent research indicating that Chicago's attempt to implement something similar to "honors for all" did not, in fact, improve outcomes. And, s/he posted additional recent research suggesting that tiered classes can be implemented in an equitable way that improves outcomes for all students, especially poor and minority students. I think it's a lot more productive to discuss educational policy in those terms -- what does the research tell us best practices are and how can they be implemented at Wilson? I think approaching administrators with your concerns and with research in hand will get a lot farther than questioning their motives on an Internet forum or assuming nefarious political motives.

DP here. The pp you're responding to is correct. You don't like what s/he is saying, so you're whining about the semantics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want your students peers to be on the same level or higher, then send your kid to Banneker or Walls.

A comprehensive DCPS high school is different. You have choices.

Says who, you? Why should we let you lay down the law on comprehensive DCPS high schools failing to challenge the brightest and hardworking kids? This DC resident of several decades says total BS. Wilson can serve all its students well. Honors classes for all in 9th grade aren't helping. What's "different" is the PC rot that infects our public school system to a degree not seen elsewhere.

It's not helpful to define policy choices that you don't agree with as "PC rot." The fact is that there have been lots of well documented issues with how tiered classes have been implemented in a lot of places, and experts in the field have developed a variety of responses to that, including differentiation and mandatory college-prep curriculum. In other words, the people that you perceive as bowing to some kind of PC political agenda are, in fact, likely trying to design policy based on research. The problem is that it's apparently research from 20-30 years ago, and it seems a lot has been learned since then.

A PP on this thread posted what seemed like some very compelling more recent research indicating that Chicago's attempt to implement something similar to "honors for all" did not, in fact, improve outcomes. And, s/he posted additional recent research suggesting that tiered classes can be implemented in an equitable way that improves outcomes for all students, especially poor and minority students. I think it's a lot more productive to discuss educational policy in those terms -- what does the research tell us best practices are and how can they be implemented at Wilson? I think approaching administrators with your concerns and with research in hand will get a lot farther than questioning their motives on an Internet forum or assuming nefarious political motives.

DP here. The pp you're responding to is correct. You don't like what s/he is saying, so you're whining about the semantics.

What I don't think is useful is ranting on an internet forum based on no data. It's a free country -- fire away if that's how you get your jollies, but it seems to me a lot more useful to discuss policy in a meaningful way informed by data and without questioning the motives of people that you have never met.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A little common sense in the face of "PC rot" goes a long way. No secret that most ed researchers go at their work armed with thinly disguised political agendas.

We can all pretend that overworked Wilson teachers can effectively engage students working at a 6th or 7th grade level in the same classes as students capable of college work, but it's nonsense.

The bolded is not some kind of hidden truth that you've discovered. It's actually just an idea that exists in your head and is, as far as I have seen, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. There is a thriving community of education research (backed by competing interests) where folks disagree vociferously and challenge others to present data to back up their policy ideas. Instead of arguing for ignorance and your own biases, how about you do some reading and share what you learn?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we expect teachers at this level to do significant differentiation? Of course the rightest kids will be ignored. I feel sorry for teachers and it’s no wonder they are leaving the profession in droves. DCPS has plenty of 9th graders who still read on a ; th grade level. Sorry I don’t want my wasting time in the same class.

Exactly. Our experience is that the vast majority of Wilson teachers are too busy even to provide comments on papers.

I'm very distressed to hear this. DD is going to Wilson. We can't afford private and she didn't get into SWW. I guess DH and I will just comment on her writing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want your students peers to be on the same level or higher, then send your kid to Banneker or Walls.

A comprehensive DCPS high school is different. You have choices.

Banneker and Walls aren't big enough for all the advanced kids.

Sure have DCPS provide enough spots for all the students at these schools. Until then, you have no right to simply make that blank statement to parents who are at other noon-tracking schools that they have choices because the reality is they don’t.

There are now 4 DCPS application high schools that set the same bars for initial application as SWW and Banneker (3.0 average and 4 or 5 on PARCC).

Banneker, SWW, McKinley and as of next fall, Early College at Coolidge.

McKinley and Banneker had some empty seats last year due to a lack of qualified applicants.

Again provide the adequate number of spots (3 schools and even a 4th is far from adequate) and locations in each ward so it’s accessible to all.

FFS - the point is anyone who wanted a seat at a school with all students presumably at or above grade level for this current school year COULD HAVE HAD ONE.

They chose other options, which is, of course, their prerogative. But if you take a pass on those other options, where the minimum standards are higher, you don't get to complain that Larla is only in class with students who are at least as prepared as she is.

Again you are making an incorrect blank statement. First even if those few open seats are filled, there is still not enough seats for all the students, not even close. Secondly, if the school is not accessible to parents because it’s not close to their home or work, then that’s a big obstacle for families. So provide a tracking school in each ward or 2 wards side by side with enough seats. But we all know DCPS won’t do this because they don’t care to provide enough opportunity to challenge those who are advanced. They put all their resources in trying to bring up the bottom at the expense of those at the top.

This is high school. If your child is advanced enough to qualify for Banneker or McKinley Tech, they are advanced enough to get there from the Wilson zone, especially with their free metro and bus pass. You don't need to be going to the school all the time. This isn't kindergarten and there are no room parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want your students peers to be on the same level or higher, then send your kid to Banneker or Walls.

A comprehensive DCPS high school is different. You have choices.

Banneker and Walls aren't big enough for all the advanced kids.

Sure have DCPS provide enough spots for all the students at these schools. Until then, you have no right to simply make that blank statement to parents who are at other noon-tracking schools that they have choices because the reality is they don’t.

There are now 4 DCPS application high schools that set the same bars for initial application as SWW and Banneker (3.0 average and 4 or 5 on PARCC).

Banneker, SWW, McKinley and as of next fall, Early College at Coolidge.

McKinley and Banneker had some empty seats last year due to a lack of qualified applicants.

Again provide the adequate number of spots (3 schools and even a 4th is far from adequate) and locations in each ward so it’s accessible to all.

FFS - the point is anyone who wanted a seat at a school with all students presumably at or above grade level for this current school year COULD HAVE HAD ONE.

They chose other options, which is, of course, their prerogative. But if you take a pass on those other options, where the minimum standards are higher, you don't get to complain that Larla is only in class with students who are at least as prepared as she is.

Again you are making an incorrect blank statement. First even if those few open seats are filled, there is still not enough seats for all the students, not even close. Secondly, if the school is not accessible to parents because it’s not close to their home or work, then that’s a big obstacle for families. So provide a tracking school in each ward or 2 wards side by side with enough seats. But we all know DCPS won’t do this because they don’t care to provide enough opportunity to challenge those who are advanced. They put all their resources in trying to bring up the bottom at the expense of those at the top.

This is high school. If your child is advanced enough to qualify for Banneker or McKinley Tech, they are advanced enough to get there from the Wilson zone, especially with their free metro and bus pass. You don't need to be going to the school all the time. This isn't kindergarten and there are no room parents.

In DC, a lot of kids travel all over town for school.

Nonetheless, it is quite reasonable not to want your high schooler commuting 45-60 minutes each way, particularly when they have extra-curriculars, and particularly when the ‘better’ school is still mediocre.

[Anonymous]

^^ From our home in Ward 3, the commute by public transit to Banneker is an 1:17 min. each way (Incl. a 2 mile walk).

Not an option.

[Anonymous]

^^ School without walls 1:07 (incl 2 mile walk).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students that are getting a 1 and 2 on PARCC have no business leaving middle school

They should stay in 8th grade an extra year and catch up

then 9th grade can actually be taught on grade level

Promotion and PARCC are not related. And there is no data showing that holding a student back in fact helps them catch up.

If you want a version of that policy, send your kid to BASIS.

I agree 8th grade is too late

The reality is most kids in DCPS should be held back in K-2 until they can actually read

The gaps need to be fixed early after elementary it's too late

Can you point to any data showing the holding kids back improves their outcomes long term? I'm not an expert, but whenever I've seen experts talk about this, they seem to say that holding kids back increases drop out rates and lowers achievement.

Meeting kids where they are with appropriate engaging material seems to me to be what's needed. If I were designing a high school, I'd have kids do everything on Khan Academy and progress at their own rate, but doubtless that's been tried and has its own issues.

https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/07/10/535625718/new-study-holding-kids-back-doesn-t-hold-them-back
https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/17/07/when-kids-are-held-back-gains-can-follow

The students who were held back did better in the first few years. Over time, the effects faded, but they still had higher GPAs and took fewer remedial courses in high school.

[Anonymous]

Interesting. These are about holding 3rd graders back, not younger or older kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. These are about holding 3rd graders back, not younger or older kids.

Second grade seems like a more logical year in the curriculum to hold back. That is the last year to get your skills solid, before learning to read becomes reading to learn, and number sense becomes math. Don't launch into 3rd until you are are a strong reader at least.