S/O High SES students will perform well no matter their peer group

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My parents immigrated here when I was 4 with nothing and we were sponsored by a church. I knew no English when I started K and went to ESL classes in school for 2-3 years. Thanks to tracking I did well in school and have a post graduate degree. You can’t make all poor kids do better or well without tracking, but you can give the kids who are smarter or higher performing a better chance to succeed like myself with tracking.

That's great that the system worked well for you. Are you by any chance white or Asian?

I ask because in the South, where I grew up in the 70s, tracking was often used as a tool for enforcing segregation in theoretically desegregated schools. There were no tests, but white kids were almost all "high achieving", whereas Black kids were on-level or special ed. It felt to me like the system was working (I'm reasonably bright, and I was in gifted classes), but I think the system always feels like it's working to the people who it's designed to work for. I think the bright black kids in my area had a different opinion. In fact, one of those kids went on to write a book about how as a child he was placed in special ed classes without ever having been administered any testing whatsoever. That was before he grew up, earned a PhD, and became tenured faculty at an Ivy.

We'd have the same result today in DC, not because of discrimination or bigotry, but because so few black kids in DCPS are on grade level according to PARCC. Heck, there are 50 point gaps in many cases, even at so-called HRCS.

Why would a kid one or more grade levels behind be put on an advanced track?

But the kids who are capable should absolutely get advanced tracking. Maybe the racial discrepancy will light a fire under some butts to *improve* the dysfunction that results in such failure.

Yup. This. What happening in DC is we have low scoring kids and they’re mostly black. That’s for many reasons obviously not because they are not capable (in case that’s not clear as day). And we all know there is this gap. But omg we start tracking and the gap goes from somewhat hidden to sitting on a pedestal with spotlights all over it. You can’t look away. It’s embarrassing. It’s awful. It’s our racist country and our hideous past and our lack of progress for the whole country to see. Of course, this is all there right now too but we can still hide from it. It sucks because it means there will never be tracking and nothing will ever change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think DCPS major strategy to close the achievement gap is to cap the growth of the top kids. They want to limit any options that will help advanced kids as that will just increase the gap between top and bottom. Two ways to close a gap - push down the top or raise up the bottom. They are not competent enough to do much with the kids who really need intervention so they want to limit the potential of the highest achieving kids.

School systems' access to federal funding is based largely on test scores, so the key metric that DCPS policymakers care about is PARCC scores. That's what teachers, schools, and ultimately the whole system are judged by. So no, they have no interest in "limiting options that will help advanced kids" as a strategy to somehow narrow the achievement gap. Smart kids will get a 5 on PARCC tests, and that's what DCPS wants. It's not like those kids might be getting a 10 on PARCC and DCPS somehow whats to prevent that. The test only goes to 5.

These statements, which are repeated often on DCUM, are a pathetic paranoid fantasy that's totally unreflective of the incentive structure driving the decisions of DCPS policymakers -- an incentive structure that's widely published and easy to understand. The fact that supposedly educated grown adults would rather sit around dreaming up ways to cast themselves as somehow victims is really sad.

The move away from tracking (e.g. "honors for all" at Wilson) is driven by a totally transparent, simple, easily understood history that's also been explained many times. Honors class access at Wilson used to be based on recommendations from the middle school. NW middle schools recommended almost all of their students for honors classes whereas other middle schools were recommending literally none of their kids, regardless of the individual kids' ability level. This was an inequitable way of tracking students that was really not based on ability.

Rather than experience the nightmare of type-A NW parent pushback ("what do you mean Johnnie's not in honors classes?") and administrative PITA that placement testing would have caused, the school decided to try to teach the richer, more rigorous curriculum of honors courses to all students. Basically they decided to make classes harder for everybody. They also tried to put more kids in AP classes.

I totally understand why they did this. I think it was a huge mistake that does a dis-service to kids at all levels, but I totally understand why they did it -- after all, their reasoning has been explained very clearly many times. For those who don't choose to indulge in paranoid victimhood, it's pretty straightforward.

It sounds like you drank some of the kool aid served by Wilson HS's principal. You are exactly right about the justification given by the principal but you failed to recognize it as a lame pretext for what we all knew the principal really wanted to do all along - eliminate as much tracking as possible at Wilson.

The notion that Wilson HS did not have and could not acquire sufficient information about incoming freshman to identify those ready for honors work is simply a joke. Virtually all of the incoming freshman are from Deal and Hardy, and Wilson has access to both their historical PARCC scores and middle school grades. The principal's claim-which is unverifiable-was that the middle school recommendations regarding which kids were ready for honors-level coursework were unreliable because one school recommended almost everyone (Deal) and the other recommend almost no one (Hardy). So, in a great example of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, instead of going back to the middle schools for additional information or looking at historical achievement scores to make the best possible determination, the principal simply said let's put everyone in the same class and call it "honors". Thus was born "Honors for All".

Given the stated justification, you might think the story ends there. But no. The very next year the principal announced that "Honors for All" would be extended to 10th grade as well. This extension put the lie to her pretext for instituting "Honors for All" in the first place because Wilson has boatloads of info on 10th graders who have been at the school for a full year. To those of us paying attention, this was not a surprise. She recently announced that "Honors for All" would be further extended to "Physics for All" - I am not joking.

So while I really do appreciate that you, like me, believe this is a huge mistake, I don't agree that Wilson's principal gave a "totally transparent, simple, easily understood" justification in the first place. It was lame and disingenuous, and I have lost all trust in her words and leadership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But hey he was sponsored by a church and had to learn English so tracking works.

Of course it works, for bright kids. I'm sorry if you were left out.

Agree. Looks like poster completely missed the point that being poor and with English as a second language did not deter the child from being identified as bright and placed in the appropriate academic class which helped him succeed.

But no, none of these kids are identified. It’s just the middle class white kids.....

[Anonymous]

Let’s be real here OK. Many poor kids in this city are scoring 1 and 2 on PARCC. No way are they going to be college bound especially with these scores in upper middle or high school. By that time it’s basically too late and they are too far behind to catch up to go to college. If they even get in, which is highly unlikely, they will fail out.

What you need in DC for these kids is vocational schools (mechanic, plumbing, carpentry, etc..) to teach them skills to contribute to society and support themselves. Identify them and have them take a few classes and go from there. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper. Not everyone is cut out for college even middle class kids. Better to have a vocation than a worthless piece of paper of a high school “diploma” as these kids are pushed thru with no competency.

That’s what some other countries do that have a successful workforce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I definitely think that my children love to learn and do work hard, so whatever environment they are in it will work out. Perhaps they won't be ready for Ivies, but my family did well following our passions without that kind of background, into technical fields and law. I don't want my kids to be on a treadmill, I just want them to be happy. I don't really feel like there is a need for them to climb socially or to get out of poverty or anything. Get degrees, find things you'd like to do, be self-sufficient. Leave it to others to work themselves to the bone and enjoy the workahol and the big house.

Perhaps I'm settling. But really I'd rather help others than help my kids or myself. I think they will see it the same way. I know it's not a common belief but I think it'll be fine. If my kids are fine, I am not going to try to find them the "best" school or anything like that.

BUT - if it makes you happy, go ahead! I know I'm offering a minority opinion.

No one said anything about the ivies. People are saying their kids in DCPS are bored and it’s too easy. A ton of parents supplement at Deal and Wilson BTW.

Yes you are settling and in the minority. Every parent wants what is best for their child. You can put whatever idealism and goal you want to help society over your child if you want but don’t think 99% of parents will. Good luck to you but don’t bet on seeing any closing of the achievement gap by sacrificing your children.

Exactly. No one said anything about Harvard or MIT. I don’t particularly care if my kid goes to an ivy or a strong state school. But it is hard to come home in the evenings and hear my kid complain about most of her classes at Wilson and saying all she wants to do is learn and be challenged but she is stuck in large classes with disruptive kids and disinterested teachers. I’m not saying all of her classes are like that. Some teachers are amazing but most seem mediocre or worse. I wish I could have sent her to GDS or Sidwell but we can’t afford those schools. Maybe we should have moved to the suburbs but didn’t realise early enough that she is a high achieving kid who loves academics. Imagine if I put her in Coolidge or Dunbar. It just would not have worked. Kids are all different but you really have to do what is best for your kid and not ultimately what may or may not be for the greater good. I resent the Wilson principal and DCPS for ignoring kids like my kid. They all deserve to learn and be happy at school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think DCPS major strategy to close the achievement gap is to cap the growth of the top kids. They want to limit any options that will help advanced kids as that will just increase the gap between top and bottom. Two ways to close a gap - push down the top or raise up the bottom. They are not competent enough to do much with the kids who really need intervention so they want to limit the potential of the highest achieving kids.

School systems' access to federal funding is based largely on test scores, so the key metric that DCPS policymakers care about is PARCC scores. That's what teachers, schools, and ultimately the whole system are judged by. So no, they have no interest in "limiting options that will help advanced kids" as a strategy to somehow narrow the achievement gap. Smart kids will get a 5 on PARCC tests, and that's what DCPS wants. It's not like those kids might be getting a 10 on PARCC and DCPS somehow whats to prevent that. The test only goes to 5.

These statements, which are repeated often on DCUM, are a pathetic paranoid fantasy that's totally unreflective of the incentive structure driving the decisions of DCPS policymakers -- an incentive structure that's widely published and easy to understand. The fact that supposedly educated grown adults would rather sit around dreaming up ways to cast themselves as somehow victims is really sad.

The move away from tracking (e.g. "honors for all" at Wilson) is driven by a totally transparent, simple, easily understood history that's also been explained many times. Honors class access at Wilson used to be based on recommendations from the middle school. NW middle schools recommended almost all of their students for honors classes whereas other middle schools were recommending literally none of their kids, regardless of the individual kids' ability level. This was an inequitable way of tracking students that was really not based on ability.

Rather than experience the nightmare of type-A NW parent pushback ("what do you mean Johnnie's not in honors classes?") and administrative PITA that placement testing would have caused, the school decided to try to teach the richer, more rigorous curriculum of honors courses to all students. Basically they decided to make classes harder for everybody. They also tried to put more kids in AP classes.

I totally understand why they did this. I think it was a huge mistake that does a dis-service to kids at all levels, but I totally understand why they did it -- after all, their reasoning has been explained very clearly many times. For those who don't choose to indulge in paranoid victimhood, it's pretty straightforward.

It sounds like you drank some of the kool aid served by Wilson HS's principal. You are exactly right about the justification given by the principal but you failed to recognize it as a lame pretext for what we all knew the principal really wanted to do all along - eliminate as much tracking as possible at Wilson.

The notion that Wilson HS did not have and could not acquire sufficient information about incoming freshman to identify those ready for honors work is simply a joke. Virtually all of the incoming freshman are from Deal and Hardy, and Wilson has access to both their historical PARCC scores and middle school grades. The principal's claim-which is unverifiable-was that the middle school recommendations regarding which kids were ready for honors-level coursework were unreliable because one school recommended almost everyone (Deal) and the other recommend almost no one (Hardy). So, in a great example of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, instead of going back to the middle schools for additional information or looking at historical achievement scores to make the best possible determination, the principal simply said let's put everyone in the same class and call it "honors". Thus was born "Honors for All".

Given the stated justification, you might think the story ends there. But no. The very next year the principal announced that "Honors for All" would be extended to 10th grade as well. This extension put the lie to her pretext for instituting "Honors for All" in the first place because Wilson has boatloads of info on 10th graders who have been at the school for a full year. To those of us paying attention, this was not a surprise. She recently announced that "Honors for All" would be further extended to "Physics for All" - I am not joking.

So while I really do appreciate that you, like me, believe this is a huge mistake, I don't agree that Wilson's principal gave a "totally transparent, simple, easily understood" justification in the first place. It was lame and disingenuous, and I have lost all trust in her words and leadership.

Sigh. “What we all knew all along.” Actually, paranoid fantasists on dcum are the only people who believe that they know about this secret conspiracy. All the Wilson parents I know in real life take the principal at her word because we u aren’t insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I definitely think that my children love to learn and do work hard, so whatever environment they are in it will work out. Perhaps they won't be ready for Ivies, but my family did well following our passions without that kind of background, into technical fields and law. I don't want my kids to be on a treadmill, I just want them to be happy. I don't really feel like there is a need for them to climb socially or to get out of poverty or anything. Get degrees, find things you'd like to do, be self-sufficient. Leave it to others to work themselves to the bone and enjoy the workahol and the big house.

Perhaps I'm settling. But really I'd rather help others than help my kids or myself. I think they will see it the same way. I know it's not a common belief but I think it'll be fine. If my kids are fine, I am not going to try to find them the "best" school or anything like that.

BUT - if it makes you happy, go ahead! I know I'm offering a minority opinion.

No one said anything about the ivies. People are saying their kids in DCPS are bored and it’s too easy. A ton of parents supplement at Deal and Wilson BTW.

Yes you are settling and in the minority. Every parent wants what is best for their child. You can put whatever idealism and goal you want to help society over your child if you want but don’t think 99% of parents will. Good luck to you but don’t bet on seeing any closing of the achievement gap by sacrificing your children.

Exactly. No one said anything about Harvard or MIT. I don’t particularly care if my kid goes to an ivy or a strong state school. But it is hard to come home in the evenings and hear my kid complain about most of her classes at Wilson and saying all she wants to do is learn and be challenged but she is stuck in large classes with disruptive kids and disinterested teachers. I’m not saying all of her classes are like that. Some teachers are amazing but most seem mediocre or worse. I wish I could have sent her to GDS or Sidwell but we can’t afford those schools. Maybe we should have moved to the suburbs but didn’t realise early enough that she is a high achieving kid who loves academics. Imagine if I put her in Coolidge or Dunbar. It just would not have worked. Kids are all different but you really have to do what is best for your kid and not ultimately what may or may not be for the greater good. I resent the Wilson principal and DCPS for ignoring kids like my kid. They all deserve to learn and be happy at school.

Let her change schools. Did she apply to a test-in school - Banneker or Walls or even Coolidge Early College (not the ‘regular’ Coolidge)? Did you do no research at all?

In a perfect world Wilson should provide what you want. But it doesn’t, and we all know that right now it just isn’t a school with 80%+ of advanced or proficient in WLA) students. For that you go to Walls, Banneker, Latin or BASIS. You CHOSE a school where fewer just 58% of students are proficient or advanced in ELA. For some students, that doesn’t seem to matter. They are proactive, challenge themselves in other ways both inside or outside of school, and go on to be successful in college and life. It is far easier to teach and run a school where most students are well prepared. If thats the cohort and experience you want, it exists. And of course, those schools aren’t overcrowded.

[Anonymous]

To the PP, most parents assume a HS of 1700 kids would have enough tracked options for high achieving students. Also walls is going be harder to get into as they are now limiting the number of white kids specifically.

[Anonymous]

Source? How is that legal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think DCPS major strategy to close the achievement gap is to cap the growth of the top kids. They want to limit any options that will help advanced kids as that will just increase the gap between top and bottom. Two ways to close a gap - push down the top or raise up the bottom. They are not competent enough to do much with the kids who really need intervention so they want to limit the potential of the highest achieving kids.

School systems' access to federal funding is based largely on test scores, so the key metric that DCPS policymakers care about is PARCC scores. That's what teachers, schools, and ultimately the whole system are judged by. So no, they have no interest in "limiting options that will help advanced kids" as a strategy to somehow narrow the achievement gap. Smart kids will get a 5 on PARCC tests, and that's what DCPS wants. It's not like those kids might be getting a 10 on PARCC and DCPS somehow whats to prevent that. The test only goes to 5.

These statements, which are repeated often on DCUM, are a pathetic paranoid fantasy that's totally unreflective of the incentive structure driving the decisions of DCPS policymakers -- an incentive structure that's widely published and easy to understand. The fact that supposedly educated grown adults would rather sit around dreaming up ways to cast themselves as somehow victims is really sad.

The move away from tracking (e.g. "honors for all" at Wilson) is driven by a totally transparent, simple, easily understood history that's also been explained many times. Honors class access at Wilson used to be based on recommendations from the middle school. NW middle schools recommended almost all of their students for honors classes whereas other middle schools were recommending literally none of their kids, regardless of the individual kids' ability level. This was an inequitable way of tracking students that was really not based on ability.

Rather than experience the nightmare of type-A NW parent pushback ("what do you mean Johnnie's not in honors classes?") and administrative PITA that placement testing would have caused, the school decided to try to teach the richer, more rigorous curriculum of honors courses to all students. Basically they decided to make classes harder for everybody. They also tried to put more kids in AP classes.

I totally understand why they did this. I think it was a huge mistake that does a dis-service to kids at all levels, but I totally understand why they did it -- after all, their reasoning has been explained very clearly many times. For those who don't choose to indulge in paranoid victimhood, it's pretty straightforward.

It sounds like you drank some of the kool aid served by Wilson HS's principal. You are exactly right about the justification given by the principal but you failed to recognize it as a lame pretext for what we all knew the principal really wanted to do all along - eliminate as much tracking as possible at Wilson.

The notion that Wilson HS did not have and could not acquire sufficient information about incoming freshman to identify those ready for honors work is simply a joke. Virtually all of the incoming freshman are from Deal and Hardy, and Wilson has access to both their historical PARCC scores and middle school grades. The principal's claim-which is unverifiable-was that the middle school recommendations regarding which kids were ready for honors-level coursework were unreliable because one school recommended almost everyone (Deal) and the other recommend almost no one (Hardy). So, in a great example of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, instead of going back to the middle schools for additional information or looking at historical achievement scores to make the best possible determination, the principal simply said let's put everyone in the same class and call it "honors". Thus was born "Honors for All".

Given the stated justification, you might think the story ends there. But no. The very next year the principal announced that "Honors for All" would be extended to 10th grade as well. This extension put the lie to her pretext for instituting "Honors for All" in the first place because Wilson has boatloads of info on 10th graders who have been at the school for a full year. To those of us paying attention, this was not a surprise. She recently announced that "Honors for All" would be further extended to "Physics for All" - I am not joking.

So while I really do appreciate that you, like me, believe this is a huge mistake, I don't agree that Wilson's principal gave a "totally transparent, simple, easily understood" justification in the first place. It was lame and disingenuous, and I have lost all trust in her words and leadership.

Because Deal scors are not to be trusted, there is no way in a million years that all Deal students are suitable for honors...so if the middle school lie, and as you say she is has the data what to do. Also, don't think principals have that much autonomy it is all driven by central office. Everything at DCPS is fake, grades in particular, thank goodness for PARCC as bad as it may be but al least it is not graded by the school and gives some measure of objectivity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a spin off of the Wilson thread but I am interested to know what research says about why high SES kids(as a proxy for children of educated mothers) will do well no matter their peer group to a point. I have read about the correlation to education of the mother. As an educated mother, I suspect that part of why my kids will do well is because I will ensure that they attend strong schools. That is, I will move or take other actions as necessary to ensure good educational outcomes, not that the fact of having an educated mother without more will cause my children to succeed academically. So, when someone says to me that I should not worry about the observed outcomes of a school because my children will be fine no matter what, my reaction is of course they will be fine precisely because I would never send them to such a school.

Go ahead, call me racist or whatever but I am really Interested in knowing whether and, if so, how the research accounts for this.

The real reason is that schools just don't matter that much past a certain, very low threshold. It's the capabilities of the students that make a school good, not the school itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a spin off of the Wilson thread but I am interested to know what research says about why high SES kids(as a proxy for children of educated mothers) will do well no matter their peer group to a point. I have read about the correlation to education of the mother. As an educated mother, I suspect that part of why my kids will do well is because I will ensure that they attend strong schools. That is, I will move or take other actions as necessary to ensure good educational outcomes, not that the fact of having an educated mother without more will cause my children to succeed academically. So, when someone says to me that I should not worry about the observed outcomes of a school because my children will be fine no matter what, my reaction is of course they will be fine precisely because I would never send them to such a school.

Go ahead, call me racist or whatever but I am really Interested in knowing whether and, if so, how the research accounts for this.

The real reason is that schools just don't matter that much past a certain, very low threshold. It's the capabilities of the students that make a school good, not the school itself.

Amen! What you put in improves what you get out. A lazy student in the best school is still lazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My parents immigrated here when I was 4 with nothing and we were sponsored by a church. I knew no English when I started K and went to ESL classes in school for 2-3 years. Thanks to tracking I did well in school and have a post graduate degree. You can’t make all poor kids do better or well without tracking, but you can give the kids who are smarter or higher performing a better chance to succeed like myself with tracking.

That's great that the system worked well for you. Are you by any chance white or Asian?

I ask because in the South, where I grew up in the 70s, tracking was often used as a tool for enforcing segregation in theoretically desegregated schools. There were no tests, but white kids were almost all "high achieving", whereas Black kids were on-level or special ed. It felt to me like the system was working (I'm reasonably bright, and I was in gifted classes), but I think the system always feels like it's working to the people who it's designed to work for. I think the bright black kids in my area had a different opinion. In fact, one of those kids went on to write a book about how as a child he was placed in special ed classes without ever having been administered any testing whatsoever. That was before he grew up, earned a PhD, and became tenured faculty at an Ivy.

We'd have the same result today in DC, not because of discrimination or bigotry, but because so few black kids in DCPS are on grade level according to PARCC. Heck, there are 50 point gaps in many cases, even at so-called HRCS.

Why would a kid one or more grade levels behind be put on an advanced track?

But the kids who are capable should absolutely get advanced tracking. Maybe the racial discrepancy will light a fire under some butts to *improve* the dysfunction that results in such failure.

Yup. This. What happening in DC is we have low scoring kids and they’re mostly black. That’s for many reasons obviously not because they are not capable (in case that’s not clear as day). And we all know there is this gap. But omg we start tracking and the gap goes from somewhat hidden to sitting on a pedestal with spotlights all over it. You can’t look away. It’s embarrassing. It’s awful. It’s our racist country and our hideous past and our lack of progress for the whole country to see. Of course, this is all there right now too but we can still hide from it. It sucks because it means there will never be tracking and nothing will ever change.

It’s hard for a kid to ever do well if they grow up in poverty with a single parent. Address what’s going on at home and these kids will be in a better position to succeed in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My parents immigrated here when I was 4 with nothing and we were sponsored by a church. I knew no English when I started K and went to ESL classes in school for 2-3 years. Thanks to tracking I did well in school and have a post graduate degree. You can’t make all poor kids do better or well without tracking, but you can give the kids who are smarter or higher performing a better chance to succeed like myself with tracking.

That's great that the system worked well for you. Are you by any chance white or Asian?

I ask because in the South, where I grew up in the 70s, tracking was often used as a tool for enforcing segregation in theoretically desegregated schools. There were no tests, but white kids were almost all "high achieving", whereas Black kids were on-level or special ed. It felt to me like the system was working (I'm reasonably bright, and I was in gifted classes), but I think the system always feels like it's working to the people who it's designed to work for. I think the bright black kids in my area had a different opinion. In fact, one of those kids went on to write a book about how as a child he was placed in special ed classes without ever having been administered any testing whatsoever. That was before he grew up, earned a PhD, and became tenured faculty at an Ivy.

We'd have the same result today in DC, not because of discrimination or bigotry, but because so few black kids in DCPS are on grade level according to PARCC. Heck, there are 50 point gaps in many cases, even at so-called HRCS.

Why would a kid one or more grade levels behind be put on an advanced track?

But the kids who are capable should absolutely get advanced tracking. Maybe the racial discrepancy will light a fire under some butts to *improve* the dysfunction that results in such failure.

Yup. This. What happening in DC is we have low scoring kids and they’re mostly black. That’s for many reasons obviously not because they are not capable (in case that’s not clear as day). And we all know there is this gap. But omg we start tracking and the gap goes from somewhat hidden to sitting on a pedestal with spotlights all over it. You can’t look away. It’s embarrassing. It’s awful. It’s our racist country and our hideous past and our lack of progress for the whole country to see. Of course, this is all there right now too but we can still hide from it. It sucks because it means there will never be tracking and nothing will ever change.

It’s hard for a kid to ever do well if they grow up in poverty with a single parent. Address what’s going on at home and these kids will be in a better position to succeed in life.

Exactly, why do you think we have never been able to close the achievement gap no matter how much money we throw at the schools? It’s not the teachers and schools that are going to do that.

Deal with the cultural issues of single moms, unstable family structure with absent or incarcerated dads, food insecurity, emotional and physical abuse, cultural violence, gangs and drugs, etc...These stressors which we know affect the brain are the things that prevent kids from learning. Sure it’s in every culture but it’s much more prevalent in the AA inner city culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the PP, most parents assume a HS of 1700 kids would have enough tracked options for high achieving students. Also walls is going be harder to get into as they are now limiting the number of white kids specifically.

Can you provide some support for this assertion?

There was an attempt last year to allow students that did not meet the PARCC standard to sit for the test if they were among the top 15 students academically at their middle school. The school did not give proper notice of the policy change and students were not allowed to sit for the test. I am not aware of any plans other that giving proper notice of this policy change this year. That is only allowing students to sit for the test and yes those students are likely POC given the demographics in DC. This is not, however, an attempt to limit the number of “white kids” at SWW.

If they are otherwise looking at changing the standards for admissions I have not heard of read anything about it. I was fairly tuned in to such discussions last year as I had a student applying that is now a 9th grader there.