DCI or Deal

[Anonymous]

^^UMC is still privileged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^UMC is still privileged.

+1
Always amazes me how UMC has become = MC on these boards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. I grew up in a poor rural area and was the top student in my grade at a public school with very limited (pretty much no) opportunities for kids who were excelling. I was admitted to a good college based on luck and great SAT scores and I REALLY struggled. I knew far less than my friends who came from rigorous high schools. In some ways, I caught up. In others, doors were permanently closed (I.e medical school-hard to get in when you get a C in physics because college physical is all new material due to such an abysmal high school class)
As I parent my own kids, my number one concern (based on my childhood) is that they’re learning and mastering material and will be prepared for college. I could care less about which college they attend. We’re pulling our oldest from Deal (where he/she received all As with little effort) for a big3 private this coming fall. I just want my kids to be challenged and really learn.

Good point and thanks for sharing your experience. It’s true. High school is only the beginning and easy. The playing field in college is harder, more competitive and only the top kids in college move on to medical school. Then in medical school the playing field is elevated even more to do well.

Signed
Someone who grew up poor, was tracked, and went to medical school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. I grew up in a poor rural area and was the top student in my grade at a public school with very limited (pretty much no) opportunities for kids who were excelling. I was admitted to a good college based on luck and great SAT scores and I REALLY struggled. I knew far less than my friends who came from rigorous high schools. In some ways, I caught up. In others, doors were permanently closed (I.e medical school-hard to get in when you get a C in physics because college physical is all new material due to such an abysmal high school class)
As I parent my own kids, my number one concern (based on my childhood) is that they’re learning and mastering material and will be prepared for college. I could care less about which college they attend. We’re pulling our oldest from Deal (where he/she received all As with little effort) for a big3 private this coming fall. I just want my kids to be challenged and really learn.

Good point and thanks for sharing your experience. It’s true. High school is only the beginning and easy. The playing field in college is harder, more competitive and only the top kids in college move on to medical school. Then in medical school the playing field is elevated even more to do well.

Signed
Someone who grew up poor, was tracked, and went to medical school

But I think that Wilson is still a far cry from a school that would leave your child unprepared for college. You don't need a big three to do that. At least, I sure hope it isn't that bad! Middle school is far less important academically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if not Deal or DCI, where are folks gonna go?

We are waitlisted at #1 at a DEAL feeder, but currently attend a school that feeds into MacFarland.

Should we stay put?

Of course not, go. But parents coming up the chain need to seek political support to challenge the idiocy of honors for all well before they get to Wilson, and Deal for that matter.

It’s really too late. 9th and 10th is done, 11th to start next year. Above should have been challenged and advocated against as soon as leadership said it would only be 2 classes. Right. 2 classes then went from 9th grade to 10th and now 11th.

There is no way DCPS is going to reverse the detracking that has started at Wilson. Reality is that DCPS only cares about narrowing the achievement gap even if they have to bring down the top students to do it. Just ask all the UMC EOTP parents trying to get differentiation and tracking. Falls on deaf ears. Response is their kids will be “fine”.

What does this mean? Where is the evidence that this is happening? Seems like a lot of Chicken Littling going on in this thread.

Here is 2 quick scenarios:

A - tracking. All kids performing in the top 10% of the class are in the AP class. Material is challenging but manageable. All peers motivated to do well. Kids rise up to the challenge and teacher can easily raise the bar of difficulty of the course. Kids learn much more and challenged to their full potential.

B - no tracking. Kids 3,4 grade levels apart. Kids at the top bored and easily gets A’s with no effort whatsoever. Teacher can not differentiate effectively with wide academic spread so she focuses on spending much of her time helping the kids at the bottom at least get to grade level.

So kids at the top in group A are learning and being challenged to perform to their full potential. Their knowledge base has increased significantly. Kids at the top in B are stagnant and not learning much at all. There’s the spread and how B is bringing the top kids down from what they potentially could achieve from A..

Lastly, the playing field gets harder and more competitive in college. The top kids in B are going to find college much more challenging and will likely struggle as they compete with kids who are used to being in group A.

As someone growing up poor and was tracked, I can personally say with certainty that I would not be where I am today if I wasn’t with a similar performing peer group that challenged me to my full potential.

I understand the theoretical scenarios. What I asked is whether there is any evidence of actual poor outcomes since Wilson moved to honors for all.

I, too, was tracked in gifted courses through MS and HS, and I like the concept of honors for all. My advanced kids have been well-served by Deal. So I’m interested to see actual evidence that Wilson students are being poorly served by this approach.

[Anonymous]

Actual evidence? Give us a break. You could always wait a decade years for some think tank of the DOE to do a study to whose results will be in line with the political bent of the organization/administration.

I've never seen a study capturing how much UMC parents pay and work to supplement when a program lacks rigor. Without than info, there's precious little to learn about what's really happening at Wilson, and Deal for that matter.

Need evidence? Private school applications and suburban moves are up for Deal 8th graders as compared to last year. Ask around or, er, wait for the study to come out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if not Deal or DCI, where are folks gonna go?

We are waitlisted at #1 at a DEAL feeder, but currently attend a school that feeds into MacFarland.

Should we stay put?

Of course not, go. But parents coming up the chain need to seek political support to challenge the idiocy of honors for all well before they get to Wilson, and Deal for that matter.

It’s really too late. 9th and 10th is done, 11th to start next year. Above should have been challenged and advocated against as soon as leadership said it would only be 2 classes. Right. 2 classes then went from 9th grade to 10th and now 11th.

There is no way DCPS is going to reverse the detracking that has started at Wilson. Reality is that DCPS only cares about narrowing the achievement gap even if they have to bring down the top students to do it. Just ask all the UMC EOTP parents trying to get differentiation and tracking. Falls on deaf ears. Response is their kids will be “fine”.

What does this mean? Where is the evidence that this is happening? Seems like a lot of Chicken Littling going on in this thread.

Here is 2 quick scenarios:

A - tracking. All kids performing in the top 10% of the class are in the AP class. Material is challenging but manageable. All peers motivated to do well. Kids rise up to the challenge and teacher can easily raise the bar of difficulty of the course. Kids learn much more and challenged to their full potential.

B - no tracking. Kids 3,4 grade levels apart. Kids at the top bored and easily gets A’s with no effort whatsoever. Teacher can not differentiate effectively with wide academic spread so she focuses on spending much of her time helping the kids at the bottom at least get to grade level.

So kids at the top in group A are learning and being challenged to perform to their full potential. Their knowledge base has increased significantly. Kids at the top in B are stagnant and not learning much at all. There’s the spread and how B is bringing the top kids down from what they potentially could achieve from A..

Lastly, the playing field gets harder and more competitive in college. The top kids in B are going to find college much more challenging and will likely struggle as they compete with kids who are used to being in group A.

As someone growing up poor and was tracked, I can personally say with certainty that I would not be where I am today if I wasn’t with a similar performing peer group that challenged me to my full potential.

I understand the theoretical scenarios. What I asked is whether there is any evidence of actual poor outcomes since Wilson moved to honors for all.

I, too, was tracked in gifted courses through MS and HS, and I like the concept of honors for all. My advanced kids have been well-served by Deal. So I’m interested to see actual evidence that Wilson students are being poorly served by this approach.

In what ways? I have two at Deal and I feel like they're not getting much out of the experience. They get high A's with very little effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if not Deal or DCI, where are folks gonna go?

We are waitlisted at #1 at a DEAL feeder, but currently attend a school that feeds into MacFarland.

Should we stay put?

Of course not, go. But parents coming up the chain need to seek political support to challenge the idiocy of honors for all well before they get to Wilson, and Deal for that matter.

It’s really too late. 9th and 10th is done, 11th to start next year. Above should have been challenged and advocated against as soon as leadership said it would only be 2 classes. Right. 2 classes then went from 9th grade to 10th and now 11th.

There is no way DCPS is going to reverse the detracking that has started at Wilson. Reality is that DCPS only cares about narrowing the achievement gap even if they have to bring down the top students to do it. Just ask all the UMC EOTP parents trying to get differentiation and tracking. Falls on deaf ears. Response is their kids will be “fine”.

What does this mean? Where is the evidence that this is happening? Seems like a lot of Chicken Littling going on in this thread.

Here is 2 quick scenarios:

A - tracking. All kids performing in the top 10% of the class are in the AP class. Material is challenging but manageable. All peers motivated to do well. Kids rise up to the challenge and teacher can easily raise the bar of difficulty of the course. Kids learn much more and challenged to their full potential.

B - no tracking. Kids 3,4 grade levels apart. Kids at the top bored and easily gets A’s with no effort whatsoever. Teacher can not differentiate effectively with wide academic spread so she focuses on spending much of her time helping the kids at the bottom at least get to grade level.

So kids at the top in group A are learning and being challenged to perform to their full potential. Their knowledge base has increased significantly. Kids at the top in B are stagnant and not learning much at all. There’s the spread and how B is bringing the top kids down from what they potentially could achieve from A..

Lastly, the playing field gets harder and more competitive in college. The top kids in B are going to find college much more challenging and will likely struggle as they compete with kids who are used to being in group A.

As someone growing up poor and was tracked, I can personally say with certainty that I would not be where I am today if I wasn’t with a similar performing peer group that challenged me to my full potential.

I understand the theoretical scenarios. What I asked is whether there is any evidence of actual poor outcomes since Wilson moved to honors for all.

I, too, was tracked in gifted courses through MS and HS, and I like the concept of honors for all. My advanced kids have been well-served by Deal. So I’m interested to see actual evidence that Wilson students are being poorly served by this approach.

FYI, as someone with a science background, the “studies” in the education sector are poor quality and of no value. So when administration quotes this study and that, take it with a grain of salt. No rigorous method, no rigorous control group, no statistical analysis, etc..

You can’t do a good study to evaluate above. You would have to have 2 groups of students (Wilson non-tracking and tracking group) with the same academic abilities being taught the same curriculum by the same teacher. Then measure outcomes of learning by some criteria and do a statistical analysis of it. Not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if not Deal or DCI, where are folks gonna go?

We are waitlisted at #1 at a DEAL feeder, but currently attend a school that feeds into MacFarland.

Should we stay put?

Of course not, go. But parents coming up the chain need to seek political support to challenge the idiocy of honors for all well before they get to Wilson, and Deal for that matter.

It’s really too late. 9th and 10th is done, 11th to start next year. Above should have been challenged and advocated against as soon as leadership said it would only be 2 classes. Right. 2 classes then went from 9th grade to 10th and now 11th.

There is no way DCPS is going to reverse the detracking that has started at Wilson. Reality is that DCPS only cares about narrowing the achievement gap even if they have to bring down the top students to do it. Just ask all the UMC EOTP parents trying to get differentiation and tracking. Falls on deaf ears. Response is their kids will be “fine”.

What does this mean? Where is the evidence that this is happening? Seems like a lot of Chicken Littling going on in this thread.

Here is 2 quick scenarios:

A - tracking. All kids performing in the top 10% of the class are in the AP class. Material is challenging but manageable. All peers motivated to do well. Kids rise up to the challenge and teacher can easily raise the bar of difficulty of the course. Kids learn much more and challenged to their full potential.

B - no tracking. Kids 3,4 grade levels apart. Kids at the top bored and easily gets A’s with no effort whatsoever. Teacher can not differentiate effectively with wide academic spread so she focuses on spending much of her time helping the kids at the bottom at least get to grade level.

So kids at the top in group A are learning and being challenged to perform to their full potential. Their knowledge base has increased significantly. Kids at the top in B are stagnant and not learning much at all. There’s the spread and how B is bringing the top kids down from what they potentially could achieve from A..

Lastly, the playing field gets harder and more competitive in college. The top kids in B are going to find college much more challenging and will likely struggle as they compete with kids who are used to being in group A.

As someone growing up poor and was tracked, I can personally say with certainty that I would not be where I am today if I wasn’t with a similar performing peer group that challenged me to my full potential.

I understand the theoretical scenarios. What I asked is whether there is any evidence of actual poor outcomes since Wilson moved to honors for all.

I, too, was tracked in gifted courses through MS and HS, and I like the concept of honors for all. My advanced kids have been well-served by Deal. So I’m interested to see actual evidence that Wilson students are being poorly served by this approach.

FYI, as someone with a science background, the “studies” in the education sector are poor quality and of no value. So when administration quotes this study and that, take it with a grain of salt. No rigorous method, no rigorous control group, no statistical analysis, etc..

You can’t do a good study to evaluate above. You would have to have 2 groups of students (Wilson non-tracking and tracking group) with the same academic abilities being taught the same curriculum by the same teacher. Then measure outcomes of learning by some criteria and do a statistical analysis of it. Not going to happen.

Forgot to add that the variable would be that the teacher could modify the curriculum as needed, i,e raise the difficulty level and that students could not get any help outside of the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if not Deal or DCI, where are folks gonna go?

We are waitlisted at #1 at a DEAL feeder, but currently attend a school that feeds into MacFarland.

Should we stay put?

Of course not, go. But parents coming up the chain need to seek political support to challenge the idiocy of honors for all well before they get to Wilson, and Deal for that matter.

It’s really too late. 9th and 10th is done, 11th to start next year. Above should have been challenged and advocated against as soon as leadership said it would only be 2 classes. Right. 2 classes then went from 9th grade to 10th and now 11th.

There is no way DCPS is going to reverse the detracking that has started at Wilson. Reality is that DCPS only cares about narrowing the achievement gap even if they have to bring down the top students to do it. Just ask all the UMC EOTP parents trying to get differentiation and tracking. Falls on deaf ears. Response is their kids will be “fine”.

What does this mean? Where is the evidence that this is happening? Seems like a lot of Chicken Littling going on in this thread.

Here is 2 quick scenarios:

A - tracking. All kids performing in the top 10% of the class are in the AP class. Material is challenging but manageable. All peers motivated to do well. Kids rise up to the challenge and teacher can easily raise the bar of difficulty of the course. Kids learn much more and challenged to their full potential.

B - no tracking. Kids 3,4 grade levels apart. Kids at the top bored and easily gets A’s with no effort whatsoever. Teacher can not differentiate effectively with wide academic spread so she focuses on spending much of her time helping the kids at the bottom at least get to grade level.

So kids at the top in group A are learning and being challenged to perform to their full potential. Their knowledge base has increased significantly. Kids at the top in B are stagnant and not learning much at all. There’s the spread and how B is bringing the top kids down from what they potentially could achieve from A..

Lastly, the playing field gets harder and more competitive in college. The top kids in B are going to find college much more challenging and will likely struggle as they compete with kids who are used to being in group A.

As someone growing up poor and was tracked, I can personally say with certainty that I would not be where I am today if I wasn’t with a similar performing peer group that challenged me to my full potential.

I understand the theoretical scenarios. What I asked is whether there is any evidence of actual poor outcomes since Wilson moved to honors for all.

I, too, was tracked in gifted courses through MS and HS, and I like the concept of honors for all. My advanced kids have been well-served by Deal. So I’m interested to see actual evidence that Wilson students are being poorly served by this approach.

FYI, as someone with a science background, the “studies” in the education sector are poor quality and of no value. So when administration quotes this study and that, take it with a grain of salt. No rigorous method, no rigorous control group, no statistical analysis, etc..

You can’t do a good study to evaluate above. You would have to have 2 groups of students (Wilson non-tracking and tracking group) with the same academic abilities being taught the same curriculum by the same teacher. Then measure outcomes of learning by some criteria and do a statistical analysis of it. Not going to happen.

Forgot to add that the variable would be that the teacher could modify the curriculum as needed, i,e raise the difficulty level and that students could not get any help outside of the class.

I’m not looking for a double-blind study. I’m just looking for any data or trends that would justify the level of hysteria in this thread. Test scores, college acceptances, something.

It’s also not clear to me that many people commenting have kids at Wilson and thus are speaking even from anecdotal experience. On that front, the families I know with high-achieving kids at Wilson are happy; in fact, I know multiple families who have chosen Wilson over Walls in the last couple of years.

If you’re “someone with a science background,” I’d think you’d also be looking for something a little more rigorous than the freak out we’re seeing in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. I grew up in a poor rural area and was the top student in my grade at a public school with very limited (pretty much no) opportunities for kids who were excelling. I was admitted to a good college based on luck and great SAT scores and I REALLY struggled. I knew far less than my friends who came from rigorous high schools. In some ways, I caught up. In others, doors were permanently closed (I.e medical school-hard to get in when you get a C in physics because college physical is all new material due to such an abysmal high school class)
As I parent my own kids, my number one concern (based on my childhood) is that they’re learning and mastering material and will be prepared for college. I could care less about which college they attend. We’re pulling our oldest from Deal (where he/she received all As with little effort) for a big3 private this coming fall. I just want my kids to be challenged and really learn.

Good point and thanks for sharing your experience. It’s true. High school is only the beginning and easy. The playing field in college is harder, more competitive and only the top kids in college move on to medical school. Then in medical school the playing field is elevated even more to do well.

Signed
Someone who grew up poor, was tracked, and went to medical school

But I think that Wilson is still a far cry from a school that would leave your child unprepared for college. You don't need a big three to do that. At least, I sure hope it isn't that bad! Middle school is far less important academically.

Deal is well regarded by the private schools in the area, including the much talked about self-acclaimed Big 3, and for good reason. PPs should not worry so much. It is actually sad that their child did well, and they decided that it must be because the school was too easy, not that their child merited the grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. I grew up in a poor rural area and was the top student in my grade at a public school with very limited (pretty much no) opportunities for kids who were excelling. I was admitted to a good college based on luck and great SAT scores and I REALLY struggled. I knew far less than my friends who came from rigorous high schools. In some ways, I caught up. In others, doors were permanently closed (I.e medical school-hard to get in when you get a C in physics because college physical is all new material due to such an abysmal high school class)
As I parent my own kids, my number one concern (based on my childhood) is that they’re learning and mastering material and will be prepared for college. I could care less about which college they attend. We’re pulling our oldest from Deal (where he/she received all As with little effort) for a big3 private this coming fall. I just want my kids to be challenged and really learn.

Good point and thanks for sharing your experience. It’s true. High school is only the beginning and easy. The playing field in college is harder, more competitive and only the top kids in college move on to medical school. Then in medical school the playing field is elevated even more to do well.

Signed
Someone who grew up poor, was tracked, and went to medical school

But I think that Wilson is still a far cry from a school that would leave your child unprepared for college. You don't need a big three to do that. At least, I sure hope it isn't that bad! Middle school is far less important academically.

Deal is well regarded by the private schools in the area, including the much talked about self-acclaimed Big 3, and for good reason. PPs should not worry so much. It is actually sad that their child did well, and they decided that it must be because the school was too easy, not that their child merited the grades.

It is too easy if the child is getting all A’s with hardly any effort. You can be in denial about it but PP is correct.

If your child is putting in effort to get the grades then that’s another story and they earned it.

Everyone thinks their child is advanced and at the top of the class but it’s not true. Those that feel their child is being challenged, stay at Deal. Those that don’t, it’s time to either supplement much or move on. Just realize that supplementing is suboptimal compared to being in a setting with similar peers at a more rigorous school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if not Deal or DCI, where are folks gonna go?

We are waitlisted at #1 at a DEAL feeder, but currently attend a school that feeds into MacFarland.

Should we stay put?

Of course not, go. But parents coming up the chain need to seek political support to challenge the idiocy of honors for all well before they get to Wilson, and Deal for that matter.

It’s really too late. 9th and 10th is done, 11th to start next year. Above should have been challenged and advocated against as soon as leadership said it would only be 2 classes. Right. 2 classes then went from 9th grade to 10th and now 11th.

There is no way DCPS is going to reverse the detracking that has started at Wilson. Reality is that DCPS only cares about narrowing the achievement gap even if they have to bring down the top students to do it. Just ask all the UMC EOTP parents trying to get differentiation and tracking. Falls on deaf ears. Response is their kids will be “fine”.

What does this mean? Where is the evidence that this is happening? Seems like a lot of Chicken Littling going on in this thread.

Here is 2 quick scenarios:

A - tracking. All kids performing in the top 10% of the class are in the AP class. Material is challenging but manageable. All peers motivated to do well. Kids rise up to the challenge and teacher can easily raise the bar of difficulty of the course. Kids learn much more and challenged to their full potential.

B - no tracking. Kids 3,4 grade levels apart. Kids at the top bored and easily gets A’s with no effort whatsoever. Teacher can not differentiate effectively with wide academic spread so she focuses on spending much of her time helping the kids at the bottom at least get to grade level.

So kids at the top in group A are learning and being challenged to perform to their full potential. Their knowledge base has increased significantly. Kids at the top in B are stagnant and not learning much at all. There’s the spread and how B is bringing the top kids down from what they potentially could achieve from A..

Lastly, the playing field gets harder and more competitive in college. The top kids in B are going to find college much more challenging and will likely struggle as they compete with kids who are used to being in group A.

As someone growing up poor and was tracked, I can personally say with certainty that I would not be where I am today if I wasn’t with a similar performing peer group that challenged me to my full potential.

I understand the theoretical scenarios. What I asked is whether there is any evidence of actual poor outcomes since Wilson moved to honors for all.

I, too, was tracked in gifted courses through MS and HS, and I like the concept of honors for all. My advanced kids have been well-served by Deal. So I’m interested to see actual evidence that Wilson students are being poorly served by this approach.

In what ways? I have two at Deal and I feel like they're not getting much out of the experience. They get high A's with very little effort.

Math is tracked. There are different project options in geography for kids working at a more advanced level. They get feedback on writing that is appropriately leveled and aimed at growth. And they spend their days with kids from a wide range of backgrounds and experiences, which makes them more worldly and empathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. I grew up in a poor rural area and was the top student in my grade at a public school with very limited (pretty much no) opportunities for kids who were excelling. I was admitted to a good college based on luck and great SAT scores and I REALLY struggled. I knew far less than my friends who came from rigorous high schools. In some ways, I caught up. In others, doors were permanently closed (I.e medical school-hard to get in when you get a C in physics because college physical is all new material due to such an abysmal high school class)
As I parent my own kids, my number one concern (based on my childhood) is that they’re learning and mastering material and will be prepared for college. I could care less about which college they attend. We’re pulling our oldest from Deal (where he/she received all As with little effort) for a big3 private this coming fall. I just want my kids to be challenged and really learn.

Good point and thanks for sharing your experience. It’s true. High school is only the beginning and easy. The playing field in college is harder, more competitive and only the top kids in college move on to medical school. Then in medical school the playing field is elevated even more to do well.

Signed
Someone who grew up poor, was tracked, and went to medical school

But I think that Wilson is still a far cry from a school that would leave your child unprepared for college. You don't need a big three to do that. At least, I sure hope it isn't that bad! Middle school is far less important academically.

Deal is well regarded by the private schools in the area, including the much talked about self-acclaimed Big 3, and for good reason. PPs should not worry so much. It is actually sad that their child did well, and they decided that it must be because the school was too easy, not that their child merited the grades.

No, Deal is easy. My kids just finished a year there. They both got straight As, including final grades of 100% in some classes during several quarters. They're in the highest math track (Algebra in 7th). They did almost no homework most nights. It's not a challenging school for semi-bright kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if not Deal or DCI, where are folks gonna go?

We are waitlisted at #1 at a DEAL feeder, but currently attend a school that feeds into MacFarland.

Should we stay put?

Of course not, go. But parents coming up the chain need to seek political support to challenge the idiocy of honors for all well before they get to Wilson, and Deal for that matter.

It’s really too late. 9th and 10th is done, 11th to start next year. Above should have been challenged and advocated against as soon as leadership said it would only be 2 classes. Right. 2 classes then went from 9th grade to 10th and now 11th.

There is no way DCPS is going to reverse the detracking that has started at Wilson. Reality is that DCPS only cares about narrowing the achievement gap even if they have to bring down the top students to do it. Just ask all the UMC EOTP parents trying to get differentiation and tracking. Falls on deaf ears. Response is their kids will be “fine”.

What does this mean? Where is the evidence that this is happening? Seems like a lot of Chicken Littling going on in this thread.

Here is 2 quick scenarios:

A - tracking. All kids performing in the top 10% of the class are in the AP class. Material is challenging but manageable. All peers motivated to do well. Kids rise up to the challenge and teacher can easily raise the bar of difficulty of the course. Kids learn much more and challenged to their full potential.

B - no tracking. Kids 3,4 grade levels apart. Kids at the top bored and easily gets A’s with no effort whatsoever. Teacher can not differentiate effectively with wide academic spread so she focuses on spending much of her time helping the kids at the bottom at least get to grade level.

So kids at the top in group A are learning and being challenged to perform to their full potential. Their knowledge base has increased significantly. Kids at the top in B are stagnant and not learning much at all. There’s the spread and how B is bringing the top kids down from what they potentially could achieve from A..

Lastly, the playing field gets harder and more competitive in college. The top kids in B are going to find college much more challenging and will likely struggle as they compete with kids who are used to being in group A.

As someone growing up poor and was tracked, I can personally say with certainty that I would not be where I am today if I wasn’t with a similar performing peer group that challenged me to my full potential.

I understand the theoretical scenarios. What I asked is whether there is any evidence of actual poor outcomes since Wilson moved to honors for all.

I, too, was tracked in gifted courses through MS and HS, and I like the concept of honors for all. My advanced kids have been well-served by Deal. So I’m interested to see actual evidence that Wilson students are being poorly served by this approach.

FYI, as someone with a science background, the “studies” in the education sector are poor quality and of no value. So when administration quotes this study and that, take it with a grain of salt. No rigorous method, no rigorous control group, no statistical analysis, etc..

You can’t do a good study to evaluate above. You would have to have 2 groups of students (Wilson non-tracking and tracking group) with the same academic abilities being taught the same curriculum by the same teacher. Then measure outcomes of learning by some criteria and do a statistical analysis of it. Not going to happen.

Forgot to add that the variable would be that the teacher could modify the curriculum as needed, i,e raise the difficulty level and that students could not get any help outside of the class.

I’m not looking for a double-blind study. I’m just looking for any data or trends that would justify the level of hysteria in this thread. Test scores, college acceptances, something.

It’s also not clear to me that many people commenting have kids at Wilson and thus are speaking even from anecdotal experience. On that front, the families I know with high-achieving kids at Wilson are happy; in fact, I know multiple families who have chosen Wilson over Walls in the last couple of years.

If you’re “someone with a science background,” I’d think you’d also be looking for something a little more rigorous than the freak out we’re seeing in this thread.

A recent Brookings Institution study references a rare randomized tracking study done by Harvard in Kenya. While it is not a U.S. study and it analyzes elementary school tracking (not high school), it does study the concept of tracking and Brookings considered it relevant enough to the U.S. experience to describe it. The results of the Harvard study (as described by Brookings) are quoted below in italics. By the way, Brookings own study found similar tracking results - i.e., tracking works and benefits both low and high performing students. You can find the study here: https://www.brookings.edu/research/tracking-and-advanced-placement/.

Harvard University Randomized Tracking Study in Kenya (2005)

Experiments in which students are randomly assigned to tracked and untracked settings are rare. In 2005, an experiment in Kenya could be conducted because schools were granted extra funds to hire first grade teachers.[5] More than a hundred schools (121) had only one first grade teacher, and the new money allowed the addition of a second teacher. The schools were randomly assigned to either a tracked or untracked condition. In the tracked schools, one of the classes was made up of higher achievers, the other of lower achievers. Students were placed in either the higher- or lower-achieving class based on whether they scored above or below the median for all students. Students in the untracked schools were assigned to the two classes randomly, creating classes heterogeneous in ability.

The experiment ran for 18 months. Both high- and low-achievers in the tracked schools gained more on achievement tests compared to students in the untracked schools. The benefit for students in higher-achieving classes was 0.19 standard deviations and for those in the lower-achieving classes, 0.16 standard deviations.