Wilson honors for all - how has it worked?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You should try the bolded yourself sometime . . .

[Anonymous]

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

In what version of commuting to SWW are you walking 2 miles, is that from your home to the metro? It is 3 blocks from foggy bottom metro station. There also are a lot of buses. We live .6 miles from the redline, about a 10 minute walk. I have a longer but similar commute by metro (red line to the blue/orange/silver line) and it takes me about 40 minutes door to door.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

In what version of commuting to SWW are you walking 2 miles, is that from your home to the metro? It is 3 blocks from foggy bottom metro station. There also are a lot of buses. We live .6 miles from the redline, about a 10 minute walk. I have a longer but similar commute by metro (red line to the blue/orange/silver line) and it takes me about 40 minutes door to door.

Long walk is from home to metro. Bus does not help this commute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No high schooler who plays sports or has extr-curriculars is going to spend 2 plus hours round trip a day commuting to a school. Unrealistic and if that is your justification, it’s weak. You cannot refute the big glaring fact that there is not enough spots in the academic high schools to meet the needs of the students in this city, not even close. And yet, the city is resistant to meeting these needs at the local in-boundary neighborhood school where others just across DC lines do.

Like someone said previously, honors for all is a sad joke. Grouping groups of kids together who are 2, 3 grade levels apart and expecting the teacher to differentiate and meet the needs of all these kids is unrealistic. What will happen is the majority of the teachers time and focus will be on bringing the low academic kid up to speed while the advance kid is left staring at a computer. Let’s just call it what it is.

[Anonymous]

Thousands of students commute that far for specialized programs or for just a shot at a better school. 75% of students in this city — 75,000 students — do not go their inbound school.

Perhaps not in your neighborhood perhaps, but 2 hrs round trip isn’t that unusual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finding this a very interesting conversation. A few points I would bring up from the meeting for 8th graders.
- Is anyone tracking the data to see if this works or not. I have to admit, I was against this as it seemed arbitrary but if it does indeed increase the number of low SES kids in high classes - I am all for it.
- I also liked the description of this breaking down and integrating social circles better. But, again - I will be curious to see if it really works. I find my kids at Deal already have a fairly diverse group of friends.

- Finally, was anyone else bothered by her apparent dislike/apathy towards Deal kids? No open house, no shadow days prior to doing the application process. Several comments about how Deal kids already know everything about Wilson because we share a campus. Very odd. My kids have never been in Wilson...

OP here - I am in total agreement with your points. Also, my kids have been to the Wilson Theater and the Wilson pool, they have never been inside the school building. I thought the idea that Deal kids would be familiar with the school completely clueless and insensitive, familiarity with the neighborhood is not familiarity with the school. I understand the challenges of a shadow day option when you have 500 or more potential incoming kids, but her "my way or the highway" attitude was off-putting. She did come across as a strong leader and caring about the kids' education, but she is also a SJW that is trying to use the Wilson resources of strong kids to bring up struggling kids. I think this is a priority for DCPS in general so I suspect this plays well downtown, and I also would support it if it is working and benefiting all the kids. That is the million dollar question.

One issue that puzzles me is why there are significant ongoing achievement gaps at Wilson. The school basically has no OOB slots available beyond those students that are coming in through the two feeders, Deal and Hardy, which are both strong middle schools. I would expect strong across the board achievement given this background.

Jesus. Are you just looking for stuff to get upset about? I never had a “shadow” day at my HS, which was similarly located right near my MS. My kids are at Deal, and if I want them to see the school, I’ll call the school and ask about options for tours, etc. I’m also confident that they’ll be fine the day they start if they’ve never been in the building! The idea that she’s being “clueless and insensitive” is really grade A, upper NW bullshit.

But, of course, the bolded part above is the giveaway. I hope you find a school that better meets your sensibilities than Wilson.

I'm the PP who first mentioned the lack of Open House or Shadow days. And I very much disagree with you on it being grade A, upper NW bullshit but thanks for your opinion. I think in a school system such as ours where there is a choice of charter, magnet and IB - kids/parents should be able to easily see a school while making the decision. Deal is huge school and still manages to do a shadow day for all it's feeder schools. I think it is more critical for Deal as that is a huge change. And no - I don't need a shadow day but it would have been helpful to have an easy way to do a comparison between the feel of Wilson and meeting it's staff while dealing with the application process.

Finally - it isn't so much that there isn't either option - it was her dismissive attitude of it. If she had simply said..."we don't do it ...we don't have the resources" - that would have been fine. But, to then dismiss the Deal kids multiple times as having already seen the place. Also, Wilson didn't come to the High School night at Deal. Why not? These are easy ways to get the community on your side. Good public relations can serve to make your job easier which in turn makes the school a better place.

No they are not obligated to but Wilson is a public school which serves our kids - they can pretend to actually care that they want them there. Then again...Albright/Neal have just spoiled me forever I suppose.

I agree that Wilson isn't under obligation to issue an invitation. Just go to an open house. We did, and it was fantastic. That was enough to convince my DS.

I think it's a good thing that she is trying to break the incessant hand-holding. I was shocked to recently find out at a gathering how many of my friends with 10th graders STILL type papers, read papers, monitor homework, email teachers. I have a slacker high-achiever, but I want him to learn to be independent. I ask him what he needs to do, then nudge him to do whatever including following up with the teachers himself. In some ways I don't fault these parents because this year is the first he's had to ever hustle for A's, and we know quite a number of upper-NW, white boys and girls who struggled at Deal, so presumably they still are. Your DC should be able to pick their own HS and do the work independently. Give them the tools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thousands of students commute that far for specialized programs or for just a shot at a better school. 75% of students in this city — 75,000 students — do not go their inbound school.

Perhaps not in your neighborhood perhaps, but 2 hrs round trip isn’t that unusual.

It may not be unusual in DC, but it is unusual to much of the world (for good reason!). Meanwhile, what you’d get at the end of that ridiculous commute is good but not stellar.

[Anonymous]

Wilson is not having any open houses to my knowledge. They had a “feeder school” night which was 1) for parents and 2) in the theater and a presentation and q and a format.

The Principal said the Deal kids don’t need to see the school as they are right here. My Deal 8th grader has never been in the school building.

These open houses sound great, I wish they would have one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Education research is 95% CRAP. The “studies” my kid’s head of school cites are total bollocks. Just because we call education studies “research” doesn’t mean it is at all close to top medical (high quality experimental) or econ (high quality observational) studies.

So... “What does the research tell us about best practices?” Very little, based on the primary research studies I’ve read in the field.

That said — I totally agree with you about the question/decision at hand. Tiered classes are the way to go. Honors for all is most likely to produce a bunch of mediocrity. But I wouldn’t make ironclad decisions based on the “research”. Relying on expert teachers’ opinions are likely to be much more informative than academics in this field.





(I’m a practicing economist with a PhD from Harvard*. )
*I hate to name- drop and argue from authority but this is a reasonable shorthand for saying I know what I’m talking about when it comes to analyzing research studies and research data. Without pasting a thesis or research paper here I’m not sure how else to establish that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Education research is 95% CRAP. The “studies” my kid’s head of school cites are total bollocks. Just because we call education studies “research” doesn’t mean it is at all close to top medical (high quality experimental) or econ (high quality observational) studies.

So... “What does the research tell us about best practices?” Very little, based on the primary research studies I’ve read in the field.

That said — I totally agree with you about the question/decision at hand. Tiered classes are the way to go. Honors for all is most likely to produce a bunch of mediocrity. But I wouldn’t make ironclad decisions based on the “research”. Relying on expert teachers’ opinions are likely to be much more informative than academics in this field.





(I’m a practicing economist with a PhD from Harvard*. )
*I hate to name- drop and argue from authority but this is a reasonable shorthand for saying I know what I’m talking about when it comes to analyzing research studies and research data. Without pasting a thesis or research paper here I’m not sure how else to establish that.

What you write makes me lose a lot of faith in the Harvard Econ department, but then again, so much that so many economists write is so wildly at variance with what the data in their field actually shows that I guess it shouldn’t surprise me. Do you have SPECIFiC concerns with the SPECIFIC experimental study cited above on the issues with tiered classes or the huge Chicago observational study, or are you, in true economist fashion, pulling opinions out of you @ss?

[Anonymous]

A physicist, a chemist and an economist were stranded on a desert island....

[Anonymous]

Biologist here.

It’s widely agreed in the hard sciences that education and nutrition “research” is crap.

As with PP economist, I’m not saying we shouldn’t think about best practices, just let’s not put blind faith in education “research” and demand “data” to make a decision.

I’d be willing to read the tiered study you’re talking about - want to link it? (Is it truly _experimental_ as you say?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Biologist here.

It’s widely agreed in the hard sciences that education and nutrition “research” is crap.

As with PP economist, I’m not saying we shouldn’t think about best practices, just let’s not put blind faith in education “research” and demand “data” to make a decision.

I’d be willing to read the tiered study you’re talking about - want to link it? (Is it truly _experimental_ as you say?)

dp: Let’s be clear — education and nutrition research is crap, but it’s because the research can’t be done in well-controlled ways. It’s not because the researchers are idiots; it’s just the nature of the fields.

Nonetheless, that doesn’t change the limitations of the research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Biologist here.

It’s widely agreed in the hard sciences that education and nutrition “research” is crap.

As with PP economist, I’m not saying we shouldn’t think about best practices, just let’s not put blind faith in education “research” and demand “data” to make a decision.

I’d be willing to read the tiered study you’re talking about - want to link it? (Is it truly _experimental_ as you say?)

Chicago study and others are linked in an earlier post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biologist here.

It’s widely agreed in the hard sciences that education and nutrition “research” is crap.

As with PP economist, I’m not saying we shouldn’t think about best practices, just let’s not put blind faith in education “research” and demand “data” to make a decision.

I’d be willing to read the tiered study you’re talking about - want to link it? (Is it truly _experimental_ as you say?)

dp: Let’s be clear — education and nutrition research is crap, but it’s because the research can’t be done in well-controlled ways. It’s not because the researchers are idiots; it’s just the nature of the fields.

Nonetheless, that doesn’t change the limitations of the research.

I’m the PP this post is replying to. (The biologist)

YES. Exactly. It’s a limitation of the fields, not that the people are idiots.

The problem is when people say “But your opinion is invalid because you’re ignoring the RESEARCH. You have to have DATA.” People who say that implicitly equate physicists measuring the Planck constant to 18 decimal places, to an education study that shows with p<0.05 that “homogeneous mixing is good”. These are two TOTALLY different kinds of research. One probably shouldn’t even use the same word.

I feel similarly about the STAR school report cards. These are approximate measures at best, and worse the STAR criteria are targets for manipulation. The STAR ratings are guidelines only, due to the inherent uncertainty of the approach. When parents tell me “well that school is better because it has 5 instead of 4 stars!!!” I just roll my eyes. STAR ratings are useful ahorthand to get a view over dozens of schools. But an experienced parent or teacher visiting two schools is far better than the STAR data.