Replicating ATS success — what are exact differences

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can argue until we’re blue in the face, but the truth is, everyone’s right. (Except those saying any school can implement the same teaching practices and get the same results.)

Is it self-selection? Yes.

Is it the way ATS teaches? Yes.

All APS elementary schools can teach the same way ATS does, but until that home piece (parental involvement, low absenteeism, lack of behavioral issues, etc) is fixed, it just isn’t going to work in the same way.

Should we do it anyway? Maybe. Raising standards and expectations is most likely the best thing, though we can’t pretend it’s not going to leave some disadvantaged kids behind. But at the end of the day, you can’t MAKE parents care. Home culture and attitude towards education accounts for a lot of a child’s success.

This is a reasonable answer. Tired of all the suggestions that no way can APS recreate what ATS is doing and a child's success or failure is about the parents. If that's the case, let's just give up on this thing called public education because none of it apparently matters. Parents matter. What a school does during the 8 hours it has kids matters.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know someone asked why ATS is different from other option schools and someone else mentioned absenteeism. For reference. ATS has 1.7% of kids with chronic absenteeism. Claremont is 18.83% and Campbell is 19.94%.

Everyone can discuss this to death. But it is the makeup of the school. THAT is the difference. ATS doesn't have some magic solution. They haven't solved education. They have a very specific self selecting group of families who highly value education. And that is super wonderful.

It is just hard to fight against nearly 20% of the school being chronically absent. The population of the school is just different.

Also, this got me looking at absentee rates at schools.

Drew 23.66%
Randolph 21.76%
Barcroft 15.5%

Lets Compare to N. Arlington schools

Nottingham .51%
Taylor 4.02%
Cardinal 2.14%

Chronic Absenteeism is probably the real problem we need to solve to help close the achievement gap.

Yet ATS is doing better than all the North Arlington schools you mentioned with the same level of chronic absenteeism. It’s not just the parent population. My friend’s two kids came from a poor performing South Arlington school and were not at grade level for anything. The parents are super involved in their kids education but the kids were falling behind because the school sucks. The youngest started last year. ATS caught her up to grade level. She came middle of first grade and could barely read. Now the eldest is at ATS. Being caught up well. The parents were super involved but as immigrants they didn’t know how to teach their kids the mechanics of reading. Also the classroom environment wasn’t safe (literally - kids were throwing stuff all the time) and both their kids were subject to bullying. Once they switched to ATS everything changed. Kids were doing better academically, socially and emotionally.

Came here to say something similar. The families and type of kids that attend ATS may contribute to the success, but there is also something different about their programing. They certainly haven't discovered a special magic solution or solved education, but, they have figured out a method that is clearly seeing results.

We received slots to ATS in 2nd and 3rd grade for our two DCs. Our kids as well as us were able to see very stark differences in the day-to-day classroom learning. Their understanding and desire to continue learning drastically changed too.

BINGO!!
When kids are appropriately challenged, they become more engaged.
When kids are insufficiently challenged, they know the adults have lower expectations of them.

**unless the family culture is one that doesn’t prioritize school. Then kids don’t turn in their homework/misbehave/don’t show up to school.

[Anonymous]

ATS should mandate 2/3rds of slots for lower socioeconomic and minority students, similar to how Montessori does their prek. I have no problem with ATS existing or being a home for attentive parents. But it should favor disadvantaged every step of the way. And, please don't tell me it's FRL rate is similar or better than other schools, that is truly irrelevant. It's FRL needs to be twice the worst neighborhood school, and it's student demographics needs to flip the stats of U.S. public. Then you know it's really serving those who need it in our society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ATS should mandate 2/3rds of slots for lower socioeconomic and minority students, similar to how Montessori does their prek. I have no problem with ATS existing or being a home for attentive parents. But it should favor disadvantaged every step of the way. And, please don't tell me its FRL rate is similar or better than other schools, that is truly irrelevant. Its FRL needs to be twice the worst neighborhood school, and its student demographics needs to flip the stats of U.S. public. Then you know it's really serving those who need it in our society.

This is an interesting comment, but I think that APS just needs to offer more schools that use the ATS model. This is a public school district. It’s unfair to offer a product like ATS- the literal best public elementary school in Virginia- when it benefits so few of the taxpaying population. I would be fine with them setting aside percentage for students receiving FRL, but there’s no getting around the fact that we need more ATS slots for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ATS should mandate 2/3rds of slots for lower socioeconomic and minority students, similar to how Montessori does their prek. I have no problem with ATS existing or being a home for attentive parents. But it should favor disadvantaged every step of the way. And, please don't tell me it's FRL rate is similar or better than other schools, that is truly irrelevant. It's FRL needs to be twice the worst neighborhood school, and it's student demographics needs to flip the stats of U.S. public. Then you know it's really serving those who need it in our society.

Yeah, no. No one’s gonna go for that. You’d be better off advocating for ATS-style teaching at Drew or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS should mandate 2/3rds of slots for lower socioeconomic and minority students, similar to how Montessori does their prek. I have no problem with ATS existing or being a home for attentive parents. But it should favor disadvantaged every step of the way. And, please don't tell me it's FRL rate is similar or better than other schools, that is truly irrelevant. It's FRL needs to be twice the worst neighborhood school, and it's student demographics needs to flip the stats of U.S. public. Then you know it's really serving those who need it in our society.

Yeah, no. No one’s gonna go for that. You’d be better off advocating for ATS-style teaching at Drew or something.

I'm PP, then shut down ATS. Sure, go ahead and try to roll out whatever magic you think can be applied on a pedagolocal basis across the board. let's hope you're successful in doing that, but then there is no reason for ATS to exist, not unless you make it a disadvantaged model.

[Anonymous]

We have two immersion why not two ATS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS should mandate 2/3rds of slots for lower socioeconomic and minority students, similar to how Montessori does their prek. I have no problem with ATS existing or being a home for attentive parents. But it should favor disadvantaged every step of the way. And, please don't tell me its FRL rate is similar or better than other schools, that is truly irrelevant. Its FRL needs to be twice the worst neighborhood school, and its student demographics needs to flip the stats of U.S. public. Then you know it's really serving those who need it in our society.

This is an interesting comment, but I think that APS just needs to offer more schools that use the ATS model. This is a public school district. It’s unfair to offer a product like ATS- the literal best public elementary school in Virginia- when it benefits so few of the taxpaying population. I would be fine with them setting aside percentage for students receiving FRL, but there’s no getting around the fact that we need more ATS slots for everyone.

All of the options are built and supported by the fact that there is demand for 125%, maybe 175%, of capacity, but no more. As a public system, you don't want to build an option building that then depends on you struggling to fill it every year. As others have noted here, there are huge swaths of APS system that do NOT want rigid ATS for their kids. And if your answer is,fine, don't build buildings, just implement inside current schoools, then I strongly suggest you look into the lessons learned from the failures of "schools win schools" in APS. Long story short, nothing makes a local school more like a civil war battleground than when you ty to divide up its classrooms between very different pedagogies. See Montessori experience at Drew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS should mandate 2/3rds of slots for lower socioeconomic and minority students, similar to how Montessori does their prek. I have no problem with ATS existing or being a home for attentive parents. But it should favor disadvantaged every step of the way. And, please don't tell me it's FRL rate is similar or better than other schools, that is truly irrelevant. It's FRL needs to be twice the worst neighborhood school, and it's student demographics needs to flip the stats of U.S. public. Then you know it's really serving those who need it in our society.

Yeah, no. No one’s gonna go for that. You’d be better off advocating for ATS-style teaching at Drew or something.

I'm PP, then shut down ATS. Sure, go ahead and try to roll out whatever magic you think can be applied on a pedagolocal basis across the board. let's hope you're successful in doing that, but then there is no reason for ATS to exist, not unless you make it a disadvantaged model.

There are a lot of people who disagree with you, but you’re entitled to your opinion I suppose.

Good luck shutting it down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS should mandate 2/3rds of slots for lower socioeconomic and minority students, similar to how Montessori does their prek. I have no problem with ATS existing or being a home for attentive parents. But it should favor disadvantaged every step of the way. And, please don't tell me its FRL rate is similar or better than other schools, that is truly irrelevant. Its FRL needs to be twice the worst neighborhood school, and its student demographics needs to flip the stats of U.S. public. Then you know it's really serving those who need it in our society.

This is an interesting comment, but I think that APS just needs to offer more schools that use the ATS model. This is a public school district. It’s unfair to offer a product like ATS- the literal best public elementary school in Virginia- when it benefits so few of the taxpaying population. I would be fine with them setting aside percentage for students receiving FRL, but there’s no getting around the fact that we need more ATS slots for everyone.

All of the options are built and supported by the fact that there is demand for 125%, maybe 175%, of capacity, but no more. As a public system, you don't want to build an option building that then depends on you struggling to fill it every year. As others have noted here, there are huge swaths of APS system that do NOT want rigid ATS for their kids. And if your answer is,fine, don't build buildings, just implement inside current schoools, then I strongly suggest you look into the lessons learned from the failures of "schools win schools" in APS. Long story short, nothing makes a local school more like a civil war battleground than when you ty to divide up its classrooms between very different pedagogies. See Montessori experience at Drew.

But demand for ATS is almost 200% of current capacity. Way more than demand for other options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ATS should mandate 2/3rds of slots for lower socioeconomic and minority students, similar to how Montessori does their prek. I have no problem with ATS existing or being a home for attentive parents. But it should favor disadvantaged every step of the way. And, please don't tell me it's FRL rate is similar or better than other schools, that is truly irrelevant. It's FRL needs to be twice the worst neighborhood school, and it's student demographics needs to flip the stats of U.S. public. Then you know it's really serving those who need it in our society.

ATS parent. I support setting aside more K-5 slots for FRL families.

Btw Montessori pre-k uses that model but the elementary school has a lower FRM rate than ATS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS should mandate 2/3rds of slots for lower socioeconomic and minority students, similar to how Montessori does their prek. I have no problem with ATS existing or being a home for attentive parents. But it should favor disadvantaged every step of the way. And, please don't tell me it's FRL rate is similar or better than other schools, that is truly irrelevant. It's FRL needs to be twice the worst neighborhood school, and it's student demographics needs to flip the stats of U.S. public. Then you know it's really serving those who need it in our society.

ATS parent. I support setting aside more K-5 slots for FRL families.

Btw Montessori pre-k uses that model but the elementary school has a lower FRM rate than ATS.

Colleges can’t even set aside spots based on race. But public elementary schools can?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS should mandate 2/3rds of slots for lower socioeconomic and minority students, similar to how Montessori does their prek. I have no problem with ATS existing or being a home for attentive parents. But it should favor disadvantaged every step of the way. And, please don't tell me its FRL rate is similar or better than other schools, that is truly irrelevant. Its FRL needs to be twice the worst neighborhood school, and its student demographics needs to flip the stats of U.S. public. Then you know it's really serving those who need it in our society.

This is an interesting comment, but I think that APS just needs to offer more schools that use the ATS model. This is a public school district. It’s unfair to offer a product like ATS- the literal best public elementary school in Virginia- when it benefits so few of the taxpaying population. I would be fine with them setting aside percentage for students receiving FRL, but there’s no getting around the fact that we need more ATS slots for everyone.

All of the options are built and supported by the fact that there is demand for 125%, maybe 175%, of capacity, but no more. As a public system, you don't want to build an option building that then depends on you struggling to fill it every year. As others have noted here, there are huge swaths of APS system that do NOT want rigid ATS for their kids. And if your answer is,fine, don't build buildings, just implement inside current schoools, then I strongly suggest you look into the lessons learned from the failures of "schools win schools" in APS. Long story short, nothing makes a local school more like a civil war battleground than when you ty to divide up its classrooms between very different pedagogies. See Montessori experience at Drew.

But demand for ATS is almost 200% of current capacity. Way more than demand for other options.

Yes, the waitlist could fill another school. And I guarantee that there are some families who don’t bother with the ATS lottery because it’s such a long shot. They could easily have the interest for a second program, and then maybe they could assign students to the school geographically like with Key and Claremont.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS should mandate 2/3rds of slots for lower socioeconomic and minority students, similar to how Montessori does their prek. I have no problem with ATS existing or being a home for attentive parents. But it should favor disadvantaged every step of the way. And, please don't tell me its FRL rate is similar or better than other schools, that is truly irrelevant. Its FRL needs to be twice the worst neighborhood school, and its student demographics needs to flip the stats of U.S. public. Then you know it's really serving those who need it in our society.

This is an interesting comment, but I think that APS just needs to offer more schools that use the ATS model. This is a public school district. It’s unfair to offer a product like ATS- the literal best public elementary school in Virginia- when it benefits so few of the taxpaying population. I would be fine with them setting aside percentage for students receiving FRL, but there’s no getting around the fact that we need more ATS slots for everyone.

All of the options are built and supported by the fact that there is demand for 125%, maybe 175%, of capacity, but no more. As a public system, you don't want to build an option building that then depends on you struggling to fill it every year. As others have noted here, there are huge swaths of APS system that do NOT want rigid ATS for their kids. And if your answer is,fine, don't build buildings, just implement inside current schoools, then I strongly suggest you look into the lessons learned from the failures of "schools win schools" in APS. Long story short, nothing makes a local school more like a civil war battleground than when you ty to divide up its classrooms between very different pedagogies. See Montessori experience at Drew.

But demand for ATS is almost 200% of current capacity. Way more than demand for other options.

Yes, the waitlist could fill another school. And I guarantee that there are some families who don’t bother with the ATS lottery because it’s such a long shot. They could easily have the interest for a second program, and then maybe they could assign students to the school geographically like with Key and Claremont.

They won’t do this because of the same reason they don’t do another HB. It was during the neighborhood schools of the most engaged and involved to students and families and scores across the region would plummet. They want to have it as a carrot, to attract families to the system, but not enough to actually provide for all of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS should mandate 2/3rds of slots for lower socioeconomic and minority students, similar to how Montessori does their prek. I have no problem with ATS existing or being a home for attentive parents. But it should favor disadvantaged every step of the way. And, please don't tell me it's FRL rate is similar or better than other schools, that is truly irrelevant. It's FRL needs to be twice the worst neighborhood school, and it's student demographics needs to flip the stats of U.S. public. Then you know it's really serving those who need it in our society.

Yeah, no. No one’s gonna go for that. You’d be better off advocating for ATS-style teaching at Drew or something.

Drew needs something. All the fighting to get a neighborhood school and it still has the same abysmal achievement outcomes. I live next door and would have zero issue with making it ATS 2 with guaranteed admission for neighborhood kids. Then the 25 kids at the ATS hub stop at Drew can come back to their neighborhood school..