Forum Index
»
DC Public and Public Charter Schools
DCI or Deal
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
I believe it. The barriers to K-12 academic tracking in our "Lake Woebegone" country are social and political, due in part to the CRM challenging the awful practice of academic tracking along race and class lines vs. to a broad based effort to nurture talent and drive wherever it can be found.
We can't be bothered to fight tooth and nail to end poverty as a society, so we beat up on teachers and advanced students of all backgrounds as a cop out, failing to track before high school in most school systems. Admins don't want to deal with pushy UMC parents complaining that their kid should be on a higher track, or risk having poor kids whose parents aren't in a good position to advocate for them fall through the cracks. NCLB and now ESSA dictates conveniently let admins off the hook. The result is that school systems and school leaders have become motivated to take the easy way out. Hint 1: advanced students who are pushed are very likely to create jobs down the track. Hint 2: If you don't track, you motivate UMC parents to cluster around a small number of schools like Deal. The model encourages the highest-performing kids tend to become lazy, poor kids to be dumped in schools for poor kids and UMC families to shell out to supplement. None of this seems terribly democratic. |
Anonymous
| I believe it too but not because of the one study in Kenya. |
Anonymous
Stop expecting bad grades and onerous homework loads. What is your child learning? Look at the actual curriculum. |
Anonymous
Your definition of “hysteria” and “freak out” is subjective, not objective. I would say many parents on here are voicing their concerns, not freaking out or being hysteric. How ironic that you say you expect something more rigorous when I stated as fact how a rigorous study is done. As someone mentioned, how do you expect accurate data or trends when you don’t assess those who left for more rigorous programs with those who stay, when you don’t account for parents supplementing extensively? You can talk less rigorous all you want. |
Anonymous
| There really should be a not too hard way to assess this, folks. A basic survey sent to parents? No one has done this amongst all the many many people working on schools data? |
Anonymous
Seriously, a study in Kenya from elementary school?? |
Anonymous
By far, the vast majority of high schools in this country is tracked with multiple levels in each subject. Let’s de-track all based on above study. We can be as uneducated as the country of Kenya. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
I am sorry, what are the survey questions that you propose should be sent to parents that will answer these questions? |
Anonymous
This is off the top of my head, but I would be happy even with some version of the following, particularly if perhaps done with random selection of families with follow ups and rewards to get high level of response, and to avoid just a certain subset of responses. Perhaps do this with families of children with multiple kids so each family has at least one in each type of program, and also balance families with kids in higher and lower level tracks. Then match responses with PARCC scores and any other assessments which are given, and their GPAs. - How is honors for all working for your child? Child A vs B vs C? Opinion on a sliding scale. Then, some questions around specifics of the program such as each class level of learning and progress, satisfaction, etc. Then, give the same survey to the children as well, although they cannot compare, but you can see their answers crossed with their parents. Is it objective? No, but, the subjective answers would be interesting and useful. Also, it would be more relevant for actual parents in this school pattern than an RCT in another country or even another state. I'm sure someone could come up with something better, but I don't see the school wanting to implement this survey.... |
Anonymous
|
I can’t speak about Deal, even though we are in bounds, but my daughter just finished 6th grade at DCI and loved it. She did come from a charter feeder school. However, she has many friends, who did not come from a feeder, but who also had a good year. With that said, she is a fairly independent and traditional learner. Our son is not and I personally, don’t think DCI would be a good fit for him and his needs, mostly because of the language piece.
As prior posts mention, they are assigned to an ATL teacher, basically a homeroom teacher, who acts more as an advisor. Also acts as a supporter who can help your child (and sometimes parents) navigate through the ups and downs of middle school, to include academics, but also the struggles with other teachers or friends. For example, recently I received emails from my daughter from school regarding concerns she had with friend drama. She wanted to come home. I was able to text her ATL teacher to explain what was going on. On his next free period he found her and helped her work through what she needed to work through. She stayed the rest of the day and the drama subsided. Teachers also offer to do lunch with the kids if they need extra help or if they need to resubmit something. As a parent, you also get to monitor their grades based on their weekly tasks or their quarterly submissions/tests. You can monitor what has been assigned and if it’s been completed. Finally, you can monitor what sites they visit via their chrome books. There has been some turnover with admin and teachers this past year. Initially, I was concerned, but overall, it’s been a really good year. Hope this helps! (And like others said, you can always switch to Deal if DCI doesn’t work out.) |
Anonymous
So, let me get this straight: year-over-year data on the outcomes of Wilson students—again, test scores, college admissions—couldn’t be used as an indication that honors for all is or isn’t working? Only a double-blind trial will do? And, in the absence of such a trial, let’s err on the side of accepting people’s fears and worries as the likeliest outcome? Here’s the thing: there are lots of studies showing the problems with tracking. Here’s an article summarizing them: https://tcf.org/content/report/integrating-classrooms-reducing-academic-tracking-strategies-school-leaders-educators/?agreed=1 And here’s a meta-analysis of 15 studies showing that de-tracking reduced the achievement gap without any negative impact on high-achieving students: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1756-5391.2009.01032.x. Oh, and here’s a study that, while not prospective double-blind, comes as close to it as would seem possible and looks at EXACTLY the tactic Wilson has pursued: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ822225 Spoiler alert: it works! Here’s the abstract: Background: This longitudinal study examines the long-term effects on the achievement of students at a diverse suburban high school after all students were given accelerated mathematics in a detracked middle school as well as ninth-grade "high-track" curriculum in all subjects in heterogeneously grouped classes. Despite considerable research indicating the ineffectiveness and inequities of ability grouping, the practice is still found in most American high schools. Research indicates that high-track classes bring students an academic benefit while low-track classes are associated with lower subsequent achievement. Corresponding research demonstrates that tracks stratify students by race and class, with African American, Latino and students from low-socioeconomic households being dramatically over-represented in low-track classes and under-represented in high-track classes. Purpose: In light of increasing pressure to hold all students to high learning standards, educators and researchers are examining policy decisions, such as tracking, in order to determine their relationship to student achievement. Design: This study used a quasi-experimental cohort design to compare pre- and post-reform success in the earning of the New York State Regents diploma and the diploma of the International Baccalaureate. Data Analysis: Using binary logistic regression analysis, the authors found that there was a statistically significant post-reform increase in the probability of students earning these standards-based diplomas. Being a member of a detracked cohort was associated with an increase of roughly 70% in the odds of IB diploma attainment and a much greater increase in the odds of Regents diploma attainment--ranging from a three-fold increase for White or Asian students, to a five-fold increase for African American or Latino students who were eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch, to a 26-fold increase for African American or Latino students not eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Further, even as the enrollment in International Baccalaureate classes increased, average scores remained high. Conclusion: The authors conclude that if a detracking reform includes high expectations for all students, sufficient resources and a commitment to the belief that students can achieve when they have access to enriched curriculum, it can be an effective strategy to help students reach high learning standards. |
Anonymous
| IB for All (thank you DCI) promotes equity, diversity, and inclusion. |
Anonymous
NP. "Honors for all" at Wilson was only implemented in fall 2017. There are NO SAT scores or college applicants who have experienced it yet; few have even had an AP class yet. There are fewer poor and minority students in the current 9th and 10th-grade classes compared to students in 11th or 12th now and compared to recent graduates. It really is too soon to tell if the Honors for All experiment has had any effect on any students -- those who are more advanced or those who are less advanced -- and the changes in the cohorts add complexity. |
Anonymous
Even more reason for people not to freak out, especially when research done on similar experiments suggests positive outcomes for all. |