How do you compare academics when there’s no real data?

[Anonymous]

Wait, what's wrong with Writers' Workshop? Our K-5 uses it and it's a school everyone raves about.

[Anonymous]

DP.

Both Writers Workshop and Readers Workshop are from the now widely discredited Lucy Calkins. Even Columbia U now has agreed her curricula do not work. There was never reproducible experimental evidence that either worked. It was just an awful educational fad.

WW implemented as specified by its author reinforces spelling and grammar errors, rather than correcting them.

RW teaches 3-cueing, and de-emphasizes Phonics. 3-cueing is a bogus method known to fail almost all students.

Under VA's newish overwhelmingly bi-partisan "Science of Reading" law, VA public schools are banned from using Readers Workshop, Whole Language, Balanced Literacy, and other discredited approaches to literacy instruction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP.

Both Writers Workshop and Readers Workshop are from the now widely discredited Lucy Calkins. Even Columbia U now has agreed her curricula do not work. There was never reproducible experimental evidence that either worked. It was just an awful educational fad.

WW implemented as specified by its author reinforces spelling and grammar errors, rather than correcting them.

RW teaches 3-cueing, and de-emphasizes Phonics. 3-cueing is a bogus method known to fail almost all students.

Under VA's newish overwhelmingly bi-partisan "Science of Reading" law, VA public schools are banned from using Readers Workshop, Whole Language, Balanced Literacy, and other discredited approaches to literacy instruction.

So why do schools still use the Lucy Calkins curriculum if it has been largely discredited? I just checked, and it looks like my son’s K–8 school uses both the Readers Workshop and Writers Workshop programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It takes time and effort. When we toured for elementary, we often took discreet snapshots of the textbooks in use or the whiteboard.

Doing this caused us to drop more than one school from consideration -- because the literacy curriculum was Lucy Calkins, balanced literacy, whole language, 3-cueing crap. Note each of those schools was or is well regarded by many on DCUM.

Similarly, we looked for the math textbooks (We consider lack of printed math textbook to be a negative). We dug in online about the several curricula we saw. Most of those curricula were OK, but one had numerous reviews saying it was watered down / delayed. That dropped a school off our list.

Same approach also can be used with other aspects of the curricula.

+1 for right approach to due diligence. Need to do for each grade. Was dismayed to learn too late that grade 5 no longer had textbooks except theology class - every other class was handouts or online via ipad/tablet. Also look at strength of foreign language teachers - are they native speakers or a part-time parent with college level 201 Spanish at best. And more than one foreign language offered to include Latin would be our preference. Preference for traditional (non-common-core) teaching methodology as well such as Saxon Math. If only there was a "classical" model that also had strong science offerings and prepared kids for IB Diploma and/or AP tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP.

Both Writers Workshop and Readers Workshop are from the now widely discredited Lucy Calkins. Even Columbia U now has agreed her curricula do not work. There was never reproducible experimental evidence that either worked. It was just an awful educational fad.

WW implemented as specified by its author reinforces spelling and grammar errors, rather than correcting them.

RW teaches 3-cueing, and de-emphasizes Phonics. 3-cueing is a bogus method known to fail almost all students.

Under VA's newish overwhelmingly bi-partisan "Science of Reading" law, VA public schools are banned from using Readers Workshop, Whole Language, Balanced Literacy, and other discredited approaches to literacy instruction.

So why do schools still use the Lucy Calkins curriculum if it has been largely discredited? I just checked, and it looks like my son’s K–8 school uses both the Readers Workshop and Writers Workshop programs.

- ask your school. Give them a donation to buy a new curriculum or move your child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP.

Both Writers Workshop and Readers Workshop are from the now widely discredited Lucy Calkins. Even Columbia U now has agreed her curricula do not work. There was never reproducible experimental evidence that either worked. It was just an awful educational fad.

WW implemented as specified by its author reinforces spelling and grammar errors, rather than correcting them.

RW teaches 3-cueing, and de-emphasizes Phonics. 3-cueing is a bogus method known to fail almost all students.

Under VA's newish overwhelmingly bi-partisan "Science of Reading" law, VA public schools are banned from using Readers Workshop, Whole Language, Balanced Literacy, and other discredited approaches to literacy instruction.

So why do schools still use the Lucy Calkins curriculum if it has been largely discredited? I just checked, and it looks like my son’s K–8 school uses both the Readers Workshop and Writers Workshop programs.

- ask your school. Give them a donation to buy a new curriculum or move your child.

They receive plenty of donations from parents. How they choose to spend those funds is another story. I think the issue lies in the educational philosophy, as Lucy Calkins’ methods seem to align very closely with a progressive approach to education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It takes time and effort. When we toured for elementary, we often took discreet snapshots of the textbooks in use or the whiteboard.

Doing this caused us to drop more than one school from consideration -- because the literacy curriculum was Lucy Calkins, balanced literacy, whole language, 3-cueing crap. Note each of those schools was or is well regarded by many on DCUM.

Similarly, we looked for the math textbooks (We consider lack of printed math textbook to be a negative). We dug in online about the several curricula we saw. Most of those curricula were OK, but one had numerous reviews saying it was watered down / delayed. That dropped a school off our list.

Same approach also can be used with other aspects of the curricula.

+1 for right approach to due diligence. Need to do for each grade. Was dismayed to learn too late that grade 5 no longer had textbooks except theology class - every other class was handouts or online via ipad/tablet. Also look at strength of foreign language teachers - are they native speakers or a part-time parent with college level 201 Spanish at best. And more than one foreign language offered to include Latin would be our preference. Preference for traditional (non-common-core) teaching methodology as well such as Saxon Math. If only there was a "classical" model that also had strong science offerings and prepared kids for IB Diploma and/or AP tests.

If you're willing to get supplemental math outside of school, WIS ticks most of these boxes. They start the IB curriculum in primary school and continue it all the way through. And all foreign language speakers are most certainly native speakers! The kids learn read a bit later than they do at other schools, but that's because there's a recognition that bilingual kids learn to read later, and why fight that when foreign language acquisition is the main goal for early years instruction anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It takes time and effort. When we toured for elementary, we often took discreet snapshots of the textbooks in use or the whiteboard.

Doing this caused us to drop more than one school from consideration -- because the literacy curriculum was Lucy Calkins, balanced literacy, whole language, 3-cueing crap. Note each of those schools was or is well regarded by many on DCUM.

Similarly, we looked for the math textbooks (We consider lack of printed math textbook to be a negative). We dug in online about the several curricula we saw. Most of those curricula were OK, but one had numerous reviews saying it was watered down / delayed. That dropped a school off our list.

Same approach also can be used with other aspects of the curricula.

+1 for right approach to due diligence. Need to do for each grade. Was dismayed to learn too late that grade 5 no longer had textbooks except theology class - every other class was handouts or online via ipad/tablet. Also look at strength of foreign language teachers - are they native speakers or a part-time parent with college level 201 Spanish at best. And more than one foreign language offered to include Latin would be our preference. Preference for traditional (non-common-core) teaching methodology as well such as Saxon Math. If only there was a "classical" model that also had strong science offerings and prepared kids for IB Diploma and/or AP tests.

If you're willing to get supplemental math outside of school, WIS ticks most of these boxes. They start the IB curriculum in primary school and continue it all the way through. And all foreign language speakers are most certainly native speakers! The kids learn read a bit later than they do at other schools, but that's because there's a recognition that bilingual kids learn to read later, and why fight that when foreign language acquisition is the main goal for early years instruction anyway.

Sorry, I meant "and all foreign language TEACHERS are most certainly native speakers!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It takes time and effort. When we toured for elementary, we often took discreet snapshots of the textbooks in use or the whiteboard.

Doing this caused us to drop more than one school from consideration -- because the literacy curriculum was Lucy Calkins, balanced literacy, whole language, 3-cueing crap. Note each of those schools was or is well regarded by many on DCUM.

Similarly, we looked for the math textbooks (We consider lack of printed math textbook to be a negative). We dug in online about the several curricula we saw. Most of those curricula were OK, but one had numerous reviews saying it was watered down / delayed. That dropped a school off our list.

Same approach also can be used with other aspects of the curricula.

+1 for right approach to due diligence. Need to do for each grade. Was dismayed to learn too late that grade 5 no longer had textbooks except theology class - every other class was handouts or online via ipad/tablet. Also look at strength of foreign language teachers - are they native speakers or a part-time parent with college level 201 Spanish at best. And more than one foreign language offered to include Latin would be our preference. Preference for traditional (non-common-core) teaching methodology as well such as Saxon Math. If only there was a "classical" model that also had strong science offerings and prepared kids for IB Diploma and/or AP tests.

If you're willing to get supplemental math outside of school, WIS ticks most of these boxes. They start the IB curriculum in primary school and continue it all the way through. And all foreign language speakers are most certainly native speakers! The kids learn read a bit later than they do at other schools, but that's because there's a recognition that bilingual kids learn to read later, and why fight that when foreign language acquisition is the main goal for early years instruction anyway.

I feel like WIS always gets some "bad at math" shade, but they have actually put a lot of effort into their math department trying to combat the rumor and are pretty solid in math now adays as well...

[Anonymous]

People will vocally disagree with anything, but the reality from PISA and NAEP testing is that very very few schools are good at teaching math.

And many of the very top math students at any school (yea, including at TJ) have supplemented math (quietly, without talking about it) for years either at home, with a tutor, or at a math center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People will vocally disagree with anything, but the reality from PISA and NAEP testing is that very very few schools are good at teaching math.

And many of the very top math students at any school (yea, including at TJ) have supplemented math (quietly, without talking about it) for years either at home, with a tutor, or at a math center.

The top kids "supplement" just by pursuing their interests. They are not the ones with tutors or Mathnasium.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It takes time and effort. When we toured for elementary, we often took discreet snapshots of the textbooks in use or the whiteboard.

Doing this caused us to drop more than one school from consideration -- because the literacy curriculum was Lucy Calkins, balanced literacy, whole language, 3-cueing crap. Note each of those schools was or is well regarded by many on DCUM.

Similarly, we looked for the math textbooks (We consider lack of printed math textbook to be a negative). We dug in online about the several curricula we saw. Most of those curricula were OK, but one had numerous reviews saying it was watered down / delayed. That dropped a school off our list.

Same approach also can be used with other aspects of the curricula.

+1 for right approach to due diligence. Need to do for each grade. Was dismayed to learn too late that grade 5 no longer had textbooks except theology class - every other class was handouts or online via ipad/tablet. Also look at strength of foreign language teachers - are they native speakers or a part-time parent with college level 201 Spanish at best. And more than one foreign language offered to include Latin would be our preference. Preference for traditional (non-common-core) teaching methodology as well such as Saxon Math. If only there was a "classical" model that also had strong science offerings and prepared kids for IB Diploma and/or AP tests.

If you're willing to get supplemental math outside of school, WIS ticks most of these boxes. They start the IB curriculum in primary school and continue it all the way through. And all foreign language speakers are most certainly native speakers! The kids learn read a bit later than they do at other schools, but that's because there's a recognition that bilingual kids learn to read later, and why fight that when foreign language acquisition is the main goal for early years instruction anyway.

I feel like WIS always gets some "bad at math" shade, but they have actually put a lot of effort into their math department trying to combat the rumor and are pretty solid in math now adays as well...

I don't know that it's "bad at math." More that its math program isn't as exceptional as its languages program. And that seems perfectly reasonable to me!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People will vocally disagree with anything, but the reality from PISA and NAEP testing is that very very few schools are good at teaching math.

And many of the very top math students at any school (yea, including at TJ) have supplemented math (quietly, without talking about it) for years either at home, with a tutor, or at a math center.

The top kids "supplement" just by pursuing their interests. They are not the ones with tutors or Mathnasium.

Some are purely self-interest, yes, but many others have structured outside math supplements either from parents, from tutors, and/or from a math after school program. This has been widely done in metro DC for years.