BASIS DC will seek to expand to include K to 4th grade

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

Because we're talking about an elementary school where the developmental and physical gaps can be really big. If a kid is held back more than once, that's a lot. If it were your kid, would you think this is a good plan? Or would you think the school is unwilling to meet their needs in a manner you consider appropriate? It's fine to say "BASIS isn't to everyone's taste" but to offer parents a choice of leaving or accepting an inappropriate class year placement is effectively pushing them out

I'll play. If my kid was to be held back 2x before 4th grade I would realize that the traditional school my kid was in was not going to prepare them to ever be independent or functioning members of society. I would want my kid in a school dedicated to getting them back on track.

But BASIS has an obligation to serve the needs of it's students in good faith. Public charters are not allowed to counsel out.

Regardless of whether this is legally true, it’s what the PCSB believes. They want to prove that charter schools can replace traditional public schools. Basis supporters love to hate DCPS, but Basis needs DCPS to take the students that Basis can’t or won’t educate.

Nope. But nice to know WTU has entered the chat!

What would BASIS be like if all schools had to take a proportionate share of students who move into DC from out of state? What would BASIS be like if all schools had to educate a proportionate share of students with high-level IEPs? Methinks BASIS' wonderful "success" wouldn't shine so bright.

What would DCPS be like if it offered magnet and gifted programs in MS and accelerated academic tracks, and had entrance exams and failed kids who couldn’t meet the standards? Then DCPS parents would not be flocking to Basis.

so what?

BASIS' "model" is premised on doing the easy parts, and avoiding the hard parts. As if my "model" at work was that I only do the tasks that are easy for me and blow off the rest, and I can only be rated on the easy tasks. If BASIS wasn't allowed to avoid the harder work, it wouldn't be as appealing to parents or look as successful. It's all premised on avoiding a fair share of the hardest parts of education.

You sound like an elementary school parent. When kids get into MS and beyond, it is acceptable and appropriate for them to be sorted into groups by academic ability. This is normal and good. Arguing that we have to get rid of acceleration programs because all schools (and classes) have to “do the hard part” is crazy and destructive. What really seems to irk you is that Basis can filter for students who can be accelerated because you apparently think it is unfair that DCPS has to take all comers. But the sensible response to that is not “destroy acceleration at charters because DCPD cannot do that.” The sensible response is “provide more acceleration at DCPS.”

Really though you just hate charters.

I really don't just hate charters, and I'm not against ability grouping. But I hate when people compare BASIS to other schools that have to do things that BASIS refuses to do. It isn't an accurate comparison and it misleads people into thinking BASIS is a better school than it actually is.

BASIS can offer accelerated classes while also providing other classes to other students who are below grade level. It's a very normal thing that many schools routinely do. But it's just sooooooooooo hard for BASIS, they just can't handle it I guess.

Basis does better academically because it is an academically focused charter. Your hypothetical seems to be that unless Basis replicates a failing DCPS it is unfair. You’re missing the entire point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

Because we're talking about an elementary school where the developmental and physical gaps can be really big. If a kid is held back more than once, that's a lot. If it were your kid, would you think this is a good plan? Or would you think the school is unwilling to meet their needs in a manner you consider appropriate? It's fine to say "BASIS isn't to everyone's taste" but to offer parents a choice of leaving or accepting an inappropriate class year placement is effectively pushing them out

I'll play. If my kid was to be held back 2x before 4th grade I would realize that the traditional school my kid was in was not going to prepare them to ever be independent or functioning members of society. I would want my kid in a school dedicated to getting them back on track.

But BASIS has an obligation to serve the needs of it's students in good faith. Public charters are not allowed to counsel out.

No one disagrees. Where you and I diverge is what it means to serve students in good faith. You seem to think it means watering down until every kid succeeds, and even then promoting anyway. I (and BASIS) think it means providing all available support but insisting that the minimum standard be met. "Counsel out" is a loaded term. If I tell you I think you are not going to succeed and you will not advance until you do, but you are welcome to stay and keep trying, that's being honest with you. I think many of the DC parents spent their entre lives being told how smart and pretty they were, such that they think any criticism or failure is someone else's fault. You've all taken that and cubed it with your own kids.

Can you describe to me what kind of student would be well-served by repeating more than one grade in elementary school? What academic or developmental problems does it address? Or does it create new problems, and hinder the child's development in other ways?

Can you describe to me what kind of other students would be well-served by having a disruptive kid 2 grade levels behind in their class for years on end? What academic or developmental needs of the other kids does it address? Or does it create new problems for the kids who are not 2+ grade levels behind and are capable of behaving in a classroom setting, and hinder all of the other children's academic growth in other ways?

This is the crux of the argument. All outcomes are suboptimal. You seem only to care about negative impact to the problems whereas I am focused on all the other kids who are punished by your approach. Plus, I understand that the kids who suffer from poor classroom management, disruptions and kids 2+ grade levels behind are disproportionately low-SES and POC. You talk a good game about ensuring the best possible education for all kids. My policies actually achieve highest net positive impact. And, yes, some kids suffer, but that's a better choice than making lots of kids suffer.

You also seek to limit this to discussion to ES. The problem with that is at some point those kids enter MS and HS years behind grade level. What do you do then, since you've set them up for failure? I have asked this over and over, but I will ask it again. What value to society and gainful employment does a "graduate" with a 4th grade education have to look forward to?

Indeed, the needs of the students are not aligned. But I think with adequate services such as a 1:1 aide and push-in support, the situation could be manageable. Is BASIS unwilling to provide those services? In DCPS there's a Behavior and Emotional Support program for children who can't be placed in general education classrooms. I believe KIPP schools also provide self-contained classrooms. Is BASIS unwilling to do that?

The discussion is limited to ES because BASIS is seeking authorization for an ES. I understand that kids grow up and will enter MS below grade level, but I don't think their situation will be improved because they're older, or because they've been forced to spend time in a younger children's classroom. I see that they will struggle with competitive employment, but other types of employment could be available, and to say that there's no "value to society" is awfully harsh.

And I ask you again, what of a student who fails a BASIS test in one subject but is on grade level for other subjects. Should they be forced to repeat a grade? It seems a high price to pay.

Do you really think that *any* student in a self-contained classroom can succeed in advanced coursework at any school in the nation? Really?

Your answer is providing funds for a 1:1 aide? How many of those should a school fund? That money is taken away from the rest of the students who are not in the self-contained classroom. No thank you.

I do think that, if adequate support is provided. Some kids need 1:1 support and specialized teaching but are nonetheless highly motivated and intelligent. Other students can't do advanced coursework, but let's be real here, lots of kids at BASIS aren't doing advanced coursework.

Schools should fund as many 1:1 aides as their students' IEPs require, according to the law. The money is not taken away from other students. You need to understand how the UPSFF works.

Lol not even DCPS does that. kids who need 1:1s go to self-contained. Charters will throw a 1:1 at a kid in ES because they don’t have the economy of scale to do self-contained generally. (Interesting that KIPP does - likely because they are big.) But a 1:1 is basically just a cheap babysitter. Later in MS the kid goes to a private placement.

I don't disagree, but it's better for the kid than repeated grade retention IMO. And the kid is still on the school's books, PARCC score-wise, so their performance does show up in the data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

Because we're talking about an elementary school where the developmental and physical gaps can be really big. If a kid is held back more than once, that's a lot. If it were your kid, would you think this is a good plan? Or would you think the school is unwilling to meet their needs in a manner you consider appropriate? It's fine to say "BASIS isn't to everyone's taste" but to offer parents a choice of leaving or accepting an inappropriate class year placement is effectively pushing them out

I'll play. If my kid was to be held back 2x before 4th grade I would realize that the traditional school my kid was in was not going to prepare them to ever be independent or functioning members of society. I would want my kid in a school dedicated to getting them back on track.

But BASIS has an obligation to serve the needs of it's students in good faith. Public charters are not allowed to counsel out.

Regardless of whether this is legally true, it’s what the PCSB believes. They want to prove that charter schools can replace traditional public schools. Basis supporters love to hate DCPS, but Basis needs DCPS to take the students that Basis can’t or won’t educate.

Nope. But nice to know WTU has entered the chat!

What would BASIS be like if all schools had to take a proportionate share of students who move into DC from out of state? What would BASIS be like if all schools had to educate a proportionate share of students with high-level IEPs? Methinks BASIS' wonderful "success" wouldn't shine so bright.

What would DCPS be like if it offered magnet and gifted programs in MS and accelerated academic tracks, and had entrance exams and failed kids who couldn’t meet the standards? Then DCPS parents would not be flocking to Basis.

so what?

BASIS' "model" is premised on doing the easy parts, and avoiding the hard parts. As if my "model" at work was that I only do the tasks that are easy for me and blow off the rest, and I can only be rated on the easy tasks. If BASIS wasn't allowed to avoid the harder work, it wouldn't be as appealing to parents or look as successful. It's all premised on avoiding a fair share of the hardest parts of education.

You sound like an elementary school parent. When kids get into MS and beyond, it is acceptable and appropriate for them to be sorted into groups by academic ability. This is normal and good. Arguing that we have to get rid of acceleration programs because all schools (and classes) have to “do the hard part” is crazy and destructive. What really seems to irk you is that Basis can filter for students who can be accelerated because you apparently think it is unfair that DCPS has to take all comers. But the sensible response to that is not “destroy acceleration at charters because DCPD cannot do that.” The sensible response is “provide more acceleration at DCPS.”

Really though you just hate charters.

I really don't just hate charters, and I'm not against ability grouping. But I hate when people compare BASIS to other schools that have to do things that BASIS refuses to do. It isn't an accurate comparison and it misleads people into thinking BASIS is a better school than it actually is.

BASIS can offer accelerated classes while also providing other classes to other students who are below grade level. It's a very normal thing that many schools routinely do. But it's just sooooooooooo hard for BASIS, they just can't handle it I guess.

Basis does better academically because it is an academically focused charter. Your hypothetical seems to be that unless Basis replicates a failing DCPS it is unfair. You’re missing the entire point.

No, you're missing the point. My argument is that if BASIS had to play by the same rules as JR (or really any by-right school), taking new kids in all grades all year long and meeting all IEPs, it wouldn't look as good as it currently does. And it's misleading to compare BASIS to other schools without accounting for that.

If you think the difference is because BASIS is "academically focused", then do you think it would do just as well if it took new kids in all grades?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

Because we're talking about an elementary school where the developmental and physical gaps can be really big. If a kid is held back more than once, that's a lot. If it were your kid, would you think this is a good plan? Or would you think the school is unwilling to meet their needs in a manner you consider appropriate? It's fine to say "BASIS isn't to everyone's taste" but to offer parents a choice of leaving or accepting an inappropriate class year placement is effectively pushing them out

I'll play. If my kid was to be held back 2x before 4th grade I would realize that the traditional school my kid was in was not going to prepare them to ever be independent or functioning members of society. I would want my kid in a school dedicated to getting them back on track.

But BASIS has an obligation to serve the needs of it's students in good faith. Public charters are not allowed to counsel out.

Regardless of whether this is legally true, it’s what the PCSB believes. They want to prove that charter schools can replace traditional public schools. Basis supporters love to hate DCPS, but Basis needs DCPS to take the students that Basis can’t or won’t educate.

Nope. But nice to know WTU has entered the chat!

What would BASIS be like if all schools had to take a proportionate share of students who move into DC from out of state? What would BASIS be like if all schools had to educate a proportionate share of students with high-level IEPs? Methinks BASIS' wonderful "success" wouldn't shine so bright.

What would DCPS be like if it offered magnet and gifted programs in MS and accelerated academic tracks, and had entrance exams and failed kids who couldn’t meet the standards? Then DCPS parents would not be flocking to Basis.

so what?

BASIS' "model" is premised on doing the easy parts, and avoiding the hard parts. As if my "model" at work was that I only do the tasks that are easy for me and blow off the rest, and I can only be rated on the easy tasks. If BASIS wasn't allowed to avoid the harder work, it wouldn't be as appealing to parents or look as successful. It's all premised on avoiding a fair share of the hardest parts of education.

You sound like an elementary school parent. When kids get into MS and beyond, it is acceptable and appropriate for them to be sorted into groups by academic ability. This is normal and good. Arguing that we have to get rid of acceleration programs because all schools (and classes) have to “do the hard part” is crazy and destructive. What really seems to irk you is that Basis can filter for students who can be accelerated because you apparently think it is unfair that DCPS has to take all comers. But the sensible response to that is not “destroy acceleration at charters because DCPD cannot do that.” The sensible response is “provide more acceleration at DCPS.”

Really though you just hate charters.

I really don't just hate charters, and I'm not against ability grouping. But I hate when people compare BASIS to other schools that have to do things that BASIS refuses to do. It isn't an accurate comparison and it misleads people into thinking BASIS is a better school than it actually is.

BASIS can offer accelerated classes while also providing other classes to other students who are below grade level. It's a very normal thing that many schools routinely do. But it's just sooooooooooo hard for BASIS, they just can't handle it I guess.

Basis does better academically because it is an academically focused charter. Your hypothetical seems to be that unless Basis replicates a failing DCPS it is unfair. You’re missing the entire point.

No, you're missing the point. My argument is that if BASIS had to play by the same rules as JR (or really any by-right school), taking new kids in all grades all year long and meeting all IEPs, it wouldn't look as good as it currently does. And it's misleading to compare BASIS to other schools without accounting for that.

If you think the difference is because BASIS is "academically focused", then do you think it would do just as well if it took new kids in all grades?

No charters have to do that, and Basis still outshines the other charters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

Because we're talking about an elementary school where the developmental and physical gaps can be really big. If a kid is held back more than once, that's a lot. If it were your kid, would you think this is a good plan? Or would you think the school is unwilling to meet their needs in a manner you consider appropriate? It's fine to say "BASIS isn't to everyone's taste" but to offer parents a choice of leaving or accepting an inappropriate class year placement is effectively pushing them out

I'll play. If my kid was to be held back 2x before 4th grade I would realize that the traditional school my kid was in was not going to prepare them to ever be independent or functioning members of society. I would want my kid in a school dedicated to getting them back on track.

But BASIS has an obligation to serve the needs of it's students in good faith. Public charters are not allowed to counsel out.

Regardless of whether this is legally true, it’s what the PCSB believes. They want to prove that charter schools can replace traditional public schools. Basis supporters love to hate DCPS, but Basis needs DCPS to take the students that Basis can’t or won’t educate.

Nope. But nice to know WTU has entered the chat!

What would BASIS be like if all schools had to take a proportionate share of students who move into DC from out of state? What would BASIS be like if all schools had to educate a proportionate share of students with high-level IEPs? Methinks BASIS' wonderful "success" wouldn't shine so bright.

What would DCPS be like if it offered magnet and gifted programs in MS and accelerated academic tracks, and had entrance exams and failed kids who couldn’t meet the standards? Then DCPS parents would not be flocking to Basis.

so what?

BASIS' "model" is premised on doing the easy parts, and avoiding the hard parts. As if my "model" at work was that I only do the tasks that are easy for me and blow off the rest, and I can only be rated on the easy tasks. If BASIS wasn't allowed to avoid the harder work, it wouldn't be as appealing to parents or look as successful. It's all premised on avoiding a fair share of the hardest parts of education.

You sound like an elementary school parent. When kids get into MS and beyond, it is acceptable and appropriate for them to be sorted into groups by academic ability. This is normal and good. Arguing that we have to get rid of acceleration programs because all schools (and classes) have to “do the hard part” is crazy and destructive. What really seems to irk you is that Basis can filter for students who can be accelerated because you apparently think it is unfair that DCPS has to take all comers. But the sensible response to that is not “destroy acceleration at charters because DCPD cannot do that.” The sensible response is “provide more acceleration at DCPS.”

Really though you just hate charters.

I really don't just hate charters, and I'm not against ability grouping. But I hate when people compare BASIS to other schools that have to do things that BASIS refuses to do. It isn't an accurate comparison and it misleads people into thinking BASIS is a better school than it actually is.

BASIS can offer accelerated classes while also providing other classes to other students who are below grade level. It's a very normal thing that many schools routinely do. But it's just sooooooooooo hard for BASIS, they just can't handle it I guess.

Basis does better academically because it is an academically focused charter. Your hypothetical seems to be that unless Basis replicates a failing DCPS it is unfair. You’re missing the entire point.

No, you're missing the point. My argument is that if BASIS had to play by the same rules as JR (or really any by-right school), taking new kids in all grades all year long and meeting all IEPs, it wouldn't look as good as it currently does. And it's misleading to compare BASIS to other schools without accounting for that.

If you think the difference is because BASIS is "academically focused", then do you think it would do just as well if it took new kids in all grades?

No charters have to do that, and Basis still outshines the other charters.

But some of them choose to do it. Choosing the easiest path of all charters does not make BASIS better.

[Anonymous]

Is BASIS going to offer the Equitable Access preference, as so many other schools do? Or is that also just not part of their model?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

Because we're talking about an elementary school where the developmental and physical gaps can be really big. If a kid is held back more than once, that's a lot. If it were your kid, would you think this is a good plan? Or would you think the school is unwilling to meet their needs in a manner you consider appropriate? It's fine to say "BASIS isn't to everyone's taste" but to offer parents a choice of leaving or accepting an inappropriate class year placement is effectively pushing them out

I'll play. If my kid was to be held back 2x before 4th grade I would realize that the traditional school my kid was in was not going to prepare them to ever be independent or functioning members of society. I would want my kid in a school dedicated to getting them back on track.

But BASIS has an obligation to serve the needs of it's students in good faith. Public charters are not allowed to counsel out.

Regardless of whether this is legally true, it’s what the PCSB believes. They want to prove that charter schools can replace traditional public schools. Basis supporters love to hate DCPS, but Basis needs DCPS to take the students that Basis can’t or won’t educate.

Nope. But nice to know WTU has entered the chat!

What would BASIS be like if all schools had to take a proportionate share of students who move into DC from out of state? What would BASIS be like if all schools had to educate a proportionate share of students with high-level IEPs? Methinks BASIS' wonderful "success" wouldn't shine so bright.

What would DCPS be like if it offered magnet and gifted programs in MS and accelerated academic tracks, and had entrance exams and failed kids who couldn’t meet the standards? Then DCPS parents would not be flocking to Basis.

so what?

BASIS' "model" is premised on doing the easy parts, and avoiding the hard parts. As if my "model" at work was that I only do the tasks that are easy for me and blow off the rest, and I can only be rated on the easy tasks. If BASIS wasn't allowed to avoid the harder work, it wouldn't be as appealing to parents or look as successful. It's all premised on avoiding a fair share of the hardest parts of education.

You sound like an elementary school parent. When kids get into MS and beyond, it is acceptable and appropriate for them to be sorted into groups by academic ability. This is normal and good. Arguing that we have to get rid of acceleration programs because all schools (and classes) have to “do the hard part” is crazy and destructive. What really seems to irk you is that Basis can filter for students who can be accelerated because you apparently think it is unfair that DCPS has to take all comers. But the sensible response to that is not “destroy acceleration at charters because DCPD cannot do that.” The sensible response is “provide more acceleration at DCPS.”

Really though you just hate charters.

I really don't just hate charters, and I'm not against ability grouping. But I hate when people compare BASIS to other schools that have to do things that BASIS refuses to do. It isn't an accurate comparison and it misleads people into thinking BASIS is a better school than it actually is.

BASIS can offer accelerated classes while also providing other classes to other students who are below grade level. It's a very normal thing that many schools routinely do. But it's just sooooooooooo hard for BASIS, they just can't handle it I guess.

Basis does better academically because it is an academically focused charter. Your hypothetical seems to be that unless Basis replicates a failing DCPS it is unfair. You’re missing the entire point.

No, you're missing the point. My argument is that if BASIS had to play by the same rules as JR (or really any by-right school), taking new kids in all grades all year long and meeting all IEPs, it wouldn't look as good as it currently does. And it's misleading to compare BASIS to other schools without accounting for that.

If you think the difference is because BASIS is "academically focused", then do you think it would do just as well if it took new kids in all grades?

No charters have to do that, and Basis still outshines the other charters.

But some of them choose to do it. Choosing the easiest path of all charters does not make BASIS better.

It absolutely makes it better because it can focus on academics. Check the waitlists. Latin takes vanishly few. Walls doesn’t. I don’t think Banneker does. and of course Basis would still fail the late entrants as appropriate. And how many new kids enroll in JR every year anyway?

I’ll say it again - you resent selective academic programs and want to destroy them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is BASIS going to offer the Equitable Access preference, as so many other schools do? Or is that also just not part of their model?

LOL. How about you take your pretty little fingers and advocate for DCPS to create selective academic programs for each MS and HS equivalent to Basis. Oh no you say? That’s right, the DCPS model is to officially reject new selective programs and offer the band-aid of OOB lottery so kids can have some slim chance of a functioning education. Great model!

[Anonymous]

Brent/Maury/LT/SWS parents are going to HATE this. All other CH parents are going to LOVE this. I have a kid at one of the schools that will hate this & I basically suspect all specious arguments on this thread are coming from those folks.

I doubt many others will care one way or another; perhaps some loud SN voices will try to shut it down on principled grounds.

[Anonymous]

Not everything is for everyone. I repeat. Not everything is for everyone. Some kids will be tremendous athletes and some will not make a school’s team. Some kids will be stars in a school play and others will be stuck doing set design. And some kids are capable of significant academic rigor and some are not going to do well in school. Not everyone belongs on the same sports team just like not everyone belongs in the same classroom. DC only takes issue with the latter and finds that academic differentiation would be inequitable. Academics must be the same for everyone even if other abilities are differentiated without controversy. It’s ridiculous. BASIS is equitable in the only way DC will allow it: treat everyone the same. The difference is that the level that everyone is going to be treated at BASIS is at a high level and not the lowest common denominator. Don’t like it? Enjoy your DCPS. Parents who have any academic standards at all would not consider most DCPS middle and high school options EOTP. Until that changes, BASIS is a godsend for families with academic kids and high educational standards. It’s okay to have a place for them, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not everything is for everyone. I repeat. Not everything is for everyone. Some kids will be tremendous athletes and some will not make a school’s team. Some kids will be stars in a school play and others will be stuck doing set design. And some kids are capable of significant academic rigor and some are not going to do well in school. Not everyone belongs on the same sports team just like not everyone belongs in the same classroom. DC only takes issue with the latter and finds that academic differentiation would be inequitable. Academics must be the same for everyone even if other abilities are differentiated without controversy. It’s ridiculous. BASIS is equitable in the only way DC will allow it: treat everyone the same. The difference is that the level that everyone is going to be treated at BASIS is at a high level and not the lowest common denominator. Don’t like it? Enjoy your DCPS. Parents who have any academic standards at all would not consider most DCPS middle and high school options EOTP. Until that changes, BASIS is a godsend for families with academic kids and high educational standards. It’s okay to have a place for them, too.

Oh come on. Nobody is saying you have to treat everyone the same. DCPS has advanced classes in some of its schools and charter schools are allowed to do that too. People are only objecting to BASIS' promotion policy because it's effectively counseling out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People OP has still not listed a source.

A source for what? This concept? It was announced last night by the head of school on a BASIS town hall meeting attended by BASIS parents.

-Not OP

The HOS also more or less mentioned this was coming during a prospective student tour in February.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

Because we're talking about an elementary school where the developmental and physical gaps can be really big. If a kid is held back more than once, that's a lot. If it were your kid, would you think this is a good plan? Or would you think the school is unwilling to meet their needs in a manner you consider appropriate? It's fine to say "BASIS isn't to everyone's taste" but to offer parents a choice of leaving or accepting an inappropriate class year placement is effectively pushing them out

I'll play. If my kid was to be held back 2x before 4th grade I would realize that the traditional school my kid was in was not going to prepare them to ever be independent or functioning members of society. I would want my kid in a school dedicated to getting them back on track.

But BASIS has an obligation to serve the needs of it's students in good faith. Public charters are not allowed to counsel out.

No one disagrees. Where you and I diverge is what it means to serve students in good faith. You seem to think it means watering down until every kid succeeds, and even then promoting anyway. I (and BASIS) think it means providing all available support but insisting that the minimum standard be met. "Counsel out" is a loaded term. If I tell you I think you are not going to succeed and you will not advance until you do, but you are welcome to stay and keep trying, that's being honest with you. I think many of the DC parents spent their entre lives being told how smart and pretty they were, such that they think any criticism or failure is someone else's fault. You've all taken that and cubed it with your own kids.

Can you describe to me what kind of student would be well-served by repeating more than one grade in elementary school? What academic or developmental problems does it address? Or does it create new problems, and hinder the child's development in other ways?

Can you describe to me what kind of other students would be well-served by having a disruptive kid 2 grade levels behind in their class for years on end? What academic or developmental needs of the other kids does it address? Or does it create new problems for the kids who are not 2+ grade levels behind and are capable of behaving in a classroom setting, and hinder all of the other children's academic growth in other ways?

This is the crux of the argument. All outcomes are suboptimal. You seem only to care about negative impact to the problems whereas I am focused on all the other kids who are punished by your approach. Plus, I understand that the kids who suffer from poor classroom management, disruptions and kids 2+ grade levels behind are disproportionately low-SES and POC. You talk a good game about ensuring the best possible education for all kids. My policies actually achieve highest net positive impact. And, yes, some kids suffer, but that's a better choice than making lots of kids suffer.

You also seek to limit this to discussion to ES. The problem with that is at some point those kids enter MS and HS years behind grade level. What do you do then, since you've set them up for failure? I have asked this over and over, but I will ask it again. What value to society and gainful employment does a "graduate" with a 4th grade education have to look forward to?

Indeed, the needs of the students are not aligned. But I think with adequate services such as a 1:1 aide and push-in support, the situation could be manageable. Is BASIS unwilling to provide those services? In DCPS there's a Behavior and Emotional Support program for children who can't be placed in general education classrooms. I believe KIPP schools also provide self-contained classrooms. Is BASIS unwilling to do that?

The discussion is limited to ES because BASIS is seeking authorization for an ES. I understand that kids grow up and will enter MS below grade level, but I don't think their situation will be improved because they're older, or because they've been forced to spend time in a younger children's classroom. I see that they will struggle with competitive employment, but other types of employment could be available, and to say that there's no "value to society" is awfully harsh.

And I ask you again, what of a student who fails a BASIS test in one subject but is on grade level for other subjects. Should they be forced to repeat a grade? It seems a high price to pay.

Yes, because: 1) Consequences for failure and 2) those are the rules in place. Don't like it? Don't send your kid to school there. Why is this so hard for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the PP mentioned, students with special needs are indeed becoming a focus at BASIS because the school has recognized that it is this group of students which has the highest attrition (as opposed to a group based on race or low SES as people on DCUM seem to assume)

No, attrition of students with special needs is exactly what people assume is going on. Attrition on purpose.

Or attrition by choice. IDEA does not guarantee As in an accelerated curriculum. If a child’s SN makes it very hard for them to be successful in a rigorous environment then it’s normal that they would switch schools. Plenty of NT kids dislike the demands as well. Basis has to support the kids it has and implement the IEP, but does not have to water down the curriculm.

This is the money phrase. It is in the end what the argument is about. People who complain about high standards don't understand the difference between affording more time, and deciding that the material is too hard. Not the same thing.

No. It's because more time (which is a nice way of saying retention and forcing them into a classroom of younger kids even if not developmentally appropriate) doesn't necessarily solve anything, and it dramatically increases the long-term chances of the kid dropping out. The answer is more services, not more time.

You misunderstood. My reference to "more time" was to untimed testing vs watering down the material covered on the test. The former is a reasonable accommodation. The latter is how DCUM and lots of SJW misinterpret IDEA and other requirements.

You also keep using "developmentally appropriate" as if that's meaningful to anyone but you and your hardened opinion. Why do you care so much about the developmental appropriateness of the kids held back and not about them in classes 2-4 grades above their skills? I find that strange.

Because we're talking about an elementary school where the developmental and physical gaps can be really big. If a kid is held back more than once, that's a lot. If it were your kid, would you think this is a good plan? Or would you think the school is unwilling to meet their needs in a manner you consider appropriate? It's fine to say "BASIS isn't to everyone's taste" but to offer parents a choice of leaving or accepting an inappropriate class year placement is effectively pushing them out

I'll play. If my kid was to be held back 2x before 4th grade I would realize that the traditional school my kid was in was not going to prepare them to ever be independent or functioning members of society. I would want my kid in a school dedicated to getting them back on track.

But BASIS has an obligation to serve the needs of it's students in good faith. Public charters are not allowed to counsel out.

No one disagrees. Where you and I diverge is what it means to serve students in good faith. You seem to think it means watering down until every kid succeeds, and even then promoting anyway. I (and BASIS) think it means providing all available support but insisting that the minimum standard be met. "Counsel out" is a loaded term. If I tell you I think you are not going to succeed and you will not advance until you do, but you are welcome to stay and keep trying, that's being honest with you. I think many of the DC parents spent their entre lives being told how smart and pretty they were, such that they think any criticism or failure is someone else's fault. You've all taken that and cubed it with your own kids.

Can you describe to me what kind of student would be well-served by repeating more than one grade in elementary school? What academic or developmental problems does it address? Or does it create new problems, and hinder the child's development in other ways?

Can you describe to me what kind of other students would be well-served by having a disruptive kid 2 grade levels behind in their class for years on end? What academic or developmental needs of the other kids does it address? Or does it create new problems for the kids who are not 2+ grade levels behind and are capable of behaving in a classroom setting, and hinder all of the other children's academic growth in other ways?

This is the crux of the argument. All outcomes are suboptimal. You seem only to care about negative impact to the problems whereas I am focused on all the other kids who are punished by your approach. Plus, I understand that the kids who suffer from poor classroom management, disruptions and kids 2+ grade levels behind are disproportionately low-SES and POC. You talk a good game about ensuring the best possible education for all kids. My policies actually achieve highest net positive impact. And, yes, some kids suffer, but that's a better choice than making lots of kids suffer.

You also seek to limit this to discussion to ES. The problem with that is at some point those kids enter MS and HS years behind grade level. What do you do then, since you've set them up for failure? I have asked this over and over, but I will ask it again. What value to society and gainful employment does a "graduate" with a 4th grade education have to look forward to?

Indeed, the needs of the students are not aligned. But I think with adequate services such as a 1:1 aide and push-in support, the situation could be manageable. Is BASIS unwilling to provide those services? In DCPS there's a Behavior and Emotional Support program for children who can't be placed in general education classrooms. I believe KIPP schools also provide self-contained classrooms. Is BASIS unwilling to do that?

The discussion is limited to ES because BASIS is seeking authorization for an ES. I understand that kids grow up and will enter MS below grade level, but I don't think their situation will be improved because they're older, or because they've been forced to spend time in a younger children's classroom. I see that they will struggle with competitive employment, but other types of employment could be available, and to say that there's no "value to society" is awfully harsh.

And I ask you again, what of a student who fails a BASIS test in one subject but is on grade level for other subjects. Should they be forced to repeat a grade? It seems a high price to pay.

Do you really think that *any* student in a self-contained classroom can succeed in advanced coursework at any school in the nation? Really?

Your answer is providing funds for a 1:1 aide? How many of those should a school fund? That money is taken away from the rest of the students who are not in the self-contained classroom. No thank you.

Bingo! The solution from these people, as always, is to divert resources away from the general population of kids who ware willing to show up and work hard in favor of these kids. No thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not everything is for everyone. I repeat. Not everything is for everyone. Some kids will be tremendous athletes and some will not make a school’s team. Some kids will be stars in a school play and others will be stuck doing set design. And some kids are capable of significant academic rigor and some are not going to do well in school. Not everyone belongs on the same sports team just like not everyone belongs in the same classroom. DC only takes issue with the latter and finds that academic differentiation would be inequitable. Academics must be the same for everyone even if other abilities are differentiated without controversy. It’s ridiculous. BASIS is equitable in the only way DC will allow it: treat everyone the same. The difference is that the level that everyone is going to be treated at BASIS is at a high level and not the lowest common denominator. Don’t like it? Enjoy your DCPS. Parents who have any academic standards at all would not consider most DCPS middle and high school options EOTP. Until that changes, BASIS is a godsend for families with academic kids and high educational standards. It’s okay to have a place for them, too.

Oh come on. Nobody is saying you have to treat everyone the same. DCPS has advanced classes in some of its schools and charter schools are allowed to do that too. People are only objecting to BASIS' promotion policy because it's effectively counseling out.

Zero schools EOTP. If you and your kind were 1/100000 as focused on DCPS offerings as you are targeting BASIS, you might actually improve things. You choose the easy way out; complain about BASIS with 650 kids instead of focusing on the other 100k in DC schools. Performative nonsense.