Exclusive school clubs in 4th and 5th grade

[Anonymous]

Somehow my kid’s T1 middle school has a whole range of clubs and activities available to anyone who wants to join. There are also more rigorous cut-based teams and activities but there is plenty for any kid to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our school does have some things like this, but other things are mentioned to kids themselves and parents are only contacted if their kid indicates interest. If you have a kid that doesn’t always volunteer themselves and/or just doesn’t pay a ton of attention, that’s another possibility. One of my kids is invited to do everything while another is barely cognizant that the activities exist; if it weren’t for kid #1, I’d think opportunities weren’t advertised to the kids themselves… but because of kid #1, I know they are.

OP here, that could be it.

Thanks to the other PPs too. I don’t think the leadership club in this case is code for behavior improvement—I know the kids and they are good kids.

Exclusive clubs are not the same as ability-based, open-through-competition clubs. Teachers inviting certain kids quietly is problematic in elementary in my opinion. Letting kids try and fail is a good exercise. But creating opportunities only for certain kids and quietly/almost secretly is quite another. I don’t know exactly what’s happening though and didn’t want to jump to conclusions.

But the point is that some of the "exclusive clubs" are things that the kids implicitly auditioned for via their classes (DCPS math bowl, DCPS Google competition, Battle of the Books, DCPS 5th Grade All Star Choir). The math instructional coach, the music teacher, etc don't need to do sham auditions, because they already know which kids can do math, read books quickly, sing well, etc. Your kid was eligible and considered, he just didn't get it.

What does “implicitly auditioned” mean? Shouldn’t the kids and parents (in elementary) be told these opportunities exist? You can’t compete for or be motivated by something if you don’t know about it. I’m perfectly fine with my kid being told you’re not good enough for this if that’s the case, but that’s not what happened.

It means teachers have access to all kinds of information about your kid and they place them into the opportunities based on that. Like at our school, the kids who score above a certain threshold on the assessments get to have a special math club, those who score above a certain number on ELA get to join a book club.

Thanks, PP. I’m the one who posted about the implicit auditions and this is exactly what I mean. Sometimes teachers don’t need “auditions” because they have way more information about, for instance, a kid’s math ability than one manufactured “audition” would ever demonstrate. Sometimes they want to pick the talented kids who demonstrate love for something — whether reading or singing — not motivate kids to strive for shiny objects their parents want them to want. Also, there are frankly lots of parents like you who don’t want to be told their kid isn’t wasn’t of the X best at something and they aren’t interested in having the fight 10x/year, so they don’t advertise the opportunity to the kids they’re passing over. In all cases, no, kids don’t actually need to know that they weren’t picked for something.

Growing up I moved around a lot. My experience was that my teachers’ wholly objective and fact based assessment of my achievements seemed to vary surprisingly by how public my dad’s job was (he was in a senior role that was in the news). I also experienced all white G&T classes where Jewish parents threatened legal action to have their high achieving kids included, and teachers responded by having kids diagram sentences like “Jesus is Lord.”

I trust most school administrators about as far as I can throw them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our school does have some things like this, but other things are mentioned to kids themselves and parents are only contacted if their kid indicates interest. If you have a kid that doesn’t always volunteer themselves and/or just doesn’t pay a ton of attention, that’s another possibility. One of my kids is invited to do everything while another is barely cognizant that the activities exist; if it weren’t for kid #1, I’d think opportunities weren’t advertised to the kids themselves… but because of kid #1, I know they are.

OP here, that could be it.

Thanks to the other PPs too. I don’t think the leadership club in this case is code for behavior improvement—I know the kids and they are good kids.

Exclusive clubs are not the same as ability-based, open-through-competition clubs. Teachers inviting certain kids quietly is problematic in elementary in my opinion. Letting kids try and fail is a good exercise. But creating opportunities only for certain kids and quietly/almost secretly is quite another. I don’t know exactly what’s happening though and didn’t want to jump to conclusions.

But the point is that some of the "exclusive clubs" are things that the kids implicitly auditioned for via their classes (DCPS math bowl, DCPS Google competition, Battle of the Books, DCPS 5th Grade All Star Choir). The math instructional coach, the music teacher, etc don't need to do sham auditions, because they already know which kids can do math, read books quickly, sing well, etc. Your kid was eligible and considered, he just didn't get it.

What does “implicitly auditioned” mean? Shouldn’t the kids and parents (in elementary) be told these opportunities exist? You can’t compete for or be motivated by something if you don’t know about it. I’m perfectly fine with my kid being told you’re not good enough for this if that’s the case, but that’s not what happened.

It means teachers have access to all kinds of information about your kid and they place them into the opportunities based on that. Like at our school, the kids who score above a certain threshold on the assessments get to have a special math club, those who score above a certain number on ELA get to join a book club.

Thanks, PP. I’m the one who posted about the implicit auditions and this is exactly what I mean. Sometimes teachers don’t need “auditions” because they have way more information about, for instance, a kid’s math ability than one manufactured “audition” would ever demonstrate. Sometimes they want to pick the talented kids who demonstrate love for something — whether reading or singing — not motivate kids to strive for shiny objects their parents want them to want. Also, there are frankly lots of parents like you who don’t want to be told their kid isn’t wasn’t of the X best at something and they aren’t interested in having the fight 10x/year, so they don’t advertise the opportunity to the kids they’re passing over. In all cases, no, kids don’t actually need to know that they weren’t picked for something.

Growing up I moved around a lot. My experience was that my teachers’ wholly objective and fact based assessment of my achievements seemed to vary surprisingly by how public my dad’s job was (he was in a senior role that was in the news). I also experienced all white G&T classes where Jewish parents threatened legal action to have their high achieving kids included, and teachers responded by having kids diagram sentences like “Jesus is Lord.”

I trust most school administrators about as far as I can throw them.

It’s an industry built on people who have an Ed D and demand to be called “doctor.” It’s not like we don’t know what we’re getting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our school does have some things like this, but other things are mentioned to kids themselves and parents are only contacted if their kid indicates interest. If you have a kid that doesn’t always volunteer themselves and/or just doesn’t pay a ton of attention, that’s another possibility. One of my kids is invited to do everything while another is barely cognizant that the activities exist; if it weren’t for kid #1, I’d think opportunities weren’t advertised to the kids themselves… but because of kid #1, I know they are.

OP here, that could be it.

Thanks to the other PPs too. I don’t think the leadership club in this case is code for behavior improvement—I know the kids and they are good kids.

Exclusive clubs are not the same as ability-based, open-through-competition clubs. Teachers inviting certain kids quietly is problematic in elementary in my opinion. Letting kids try and fail is a good exercise. But creating opportunities only for certain kids and quietly/almost secretly is quite another. I don’t know exactly what’s happening though and didn’t want to jump to conclusions.

But the point is that some of the "exclusive clubs" are things that the kids implicitly auditioned for via their classes (DCPS math bowl, DCPS Google competition, Battle of the Books, DCPS 5th Grade All Star Choir). The math instructional coach, the music teacher, etc don't need to do sham auditions, because they already know which kids can do math, read books quickly, sing well, etc. Your kid was eligible and considered, he just didn't get it.

NP. I don't know about this. Some of this stuff, yes, teachers will know because kids are explicitly tested in a variety of ways (homework, in class small groups, iReady diagnostics, RCTs, etc.). So yes, if the school does a club for kids who are advanced in math and only offers it to the kids testing above a certain level in math, that makes sense.

But for categories, I think you need a more explicit try out. Some kids sing very well but are shy during music class and sing quietly or hide in the back. That's actually exactly the sort of kid who would benefit from being singled out for something like an after school choir. Not 5th Grade All Star Choir but a club specific to the school. Or with writing -- some kids write well but struggle with the structured writing they are prompted to do in school. If you're doing a creative writing club after school, you should base it on an open writing assignment that allows kids to show off their ability/creativity, not on how well they answer curriculum based reading comprehension questions in ELA.

And OP said this club was for leadership. I actually think basing that on teacher selection instead of an application process is really dicy because in elementary, kids with "leadership" qualities are sometimes just popular kids. They tend to be the oldest in the grade, for boys the tallest or most athletic, for girls the prettiest. This is why we don't let 3rd graders vote (though many adults don't do any better than this). If I was creating a leadership club at an elementary school, I would have a formal application process where kids explained in their own words what makes a good leader, what they think it means to have strength of character, be persuasive, or what obligations leaders have to the people they lead. Some of the popular kids likely would do well on that application, but I bet you'd also discover some of the kids outside of that group have a lot to offer and deserve an opportunity to hone those leadership skills. Otherwise you are just reinforcing the shallow preferences of school popularity, not really helping to build strong leaders.

All of this was written by someone who is clearly not a teacher.

I was a teacher for years. Teachers understand each kid very well, and can see through all of this.

Teachers also have a LOT of exposure to parents who don't have a good grasp on how their kids compare to the rest of the kids.

I will say in DCPS it is very difficult to get a feel for how my kids compare to the rest of the kids. The school rarely shares the information they have that compares my kid to others and instead just compares my kid to mushy "meeting expectations" benchmarks on the 1-4 scale. CAPE testing was one of the few times I got information that explicitly compared my kid to others. Another was a rare time that the school shared the distribution of iready diagnostic scores, and that was only because parents were complaining about a change in curriculum and the school wanted to push back and show that scores increased. I realized after awhile I'd get better info from my kids because they know what reading and math groups they are in. Even if the teachers won't tell us whether our kids are in the highest group and just call the groups different cutesy animal names, the kids know where they stand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our school does have some things like this, but other things are mentioned to kids themselves and parents are only contacted if their kid indicates interest. If you have a kid that doesn’t always volunteer themselves and/or just doesn’t pay a ton of attention, that’s another possibility. One of my kids is invited to do everything while another is barely cognizant that the activities exist; if it weren’t for kid #1, I’d think opportunities weren’t advertised to the kids themselves… but because of kid #1, I know they are.

OP here, that could be it.

Thanks to the other PPs too. I don’t think the leadership club in this case is code for behavior improvement—I know the kids and they are good kids.

Exclusive clubs are not the same as ability-based, open-through-competition clubs. Teachers inviting certain kids quietly is problematic in elementary in my opinion. Letting kids try and fail is a good exercise. But creating opportunities only for certain kids and quietly/almost secretly is quite another. I don’t know exactly what’s happening though and didn’t want to jump to conclusions.

But the point is that some of the "exclusive clubs" are things that the kids implicitly auditioned for via their classes (DCPS math bowl, DCPS Google competition, Battle of the Books, DCPS 5th Grade All Star Choir). The math instructional coach, the music teacher, etc don't need to do sham auditions, because they already know which kids can do math, read books quickly, sing well, etc. Your kid was eligible and considered, he just didn't get it.

NP. I don't know about this. Some of this stuff, yes, teachers will know because kids are explicitly tested in a variety of ways (homework, in class small groups, iReady diagnostics, RCTs, etc.). So yes, if the school does a club for kids who are advanced in math and only offers it to the kids testing above a certain level in math, that makes sense.

But for categories, I think you need a more explicit try out. Some kids sing very well but are shy during music class and sing quietly or hide in the back. That's actually exactly the sort of kid who would benefit from being singled out for something like an after school choir. Not 5th Grade All Star Choir but a club specific to the school. Or with writing -- some kids write well but struggle with the structured writing they are prompted to do in school. If you're doing a creative writing club after school, you should base it on an open writing assignment that allows kids to show off their ability/creativity, not on how well they answer curriculum based reading comprehension questions in ELA.

And OP said this club was for leadership. I actually think basing that on teacher selection instead of an application process is really dicy because in elementary, kids with "leadership" qualities are sometimes just popular kids. They tend to be the oldest in the grade, for boys the tallest or most athletic, for girls the prettiest. This is why we don't let 3rd graders vote (though many adults don't do any better than this). If I was creating a leadership club at an elementary school, I would have a formal application process where kids explained in their own words what makes a good leader, what they think it means to have strength of character, be persuasive, or what obligations leaders have to the people they lead. Some of the popular kids likely would do well on that application, but I bet you'd also discover some of the kids outside of that group have a lot to offer and deserve an opportunity to hone those leadership skills. Otherwise you are just reinforcing the shallow preferences of school popularity, not really helping to build strong leaders.

All of this was written by someone who is clearly not a teacher.

I was a teacher for years. Teachers understand each kid very well, and can see through all of this.

Teachers also have a LOT of exposure to parents who don't have a good grasp on how their kids compare to the rest of the kids.

I will say in DCPS it is very difficult to get a feel for how my kids compare to the rest of the kids. The school rarely shares the information they have that compares my kid to others and instead just compares my kid to mushy "meeting expectations" benchmarks on the 1-4 scale. CAPE testing was one of the few times I got information that explicitly compared my kid to others. Another was a rare time that the school shared the distribution of iready diagnostic scores, and that was only because parents were complaining about a change in curriculum and the school wanted to push back and show that scores increased. I realized after awhile I'd get better info from my kids because they know what reading and math groups they are in. Even if the teachers won't tell us whether our kids are in the highest group and just call the groups different cutesy animal names, the kids know where they stand.

Teachers have no interest in telling parents "hey, you have an above average kid, with 15 kids above and 10 below in this classroom." that's not a pleasant or appropriate conversation to have with a parent.

However, teachers do know how the kids rank, and they use that information all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our school does have some things like this, but other things are mentioned to kids themselves and parents are only contacted if their kid indicates interest. If you have a kid that doesn’t always volunteer themselves and/or just doesn’t pay a ton of attention, that’s another possibility. One of my kids is invited to do everything while another is barely cognizant that the activities exist; if it weren’t for kid #1, I’d think opportunities weren’t advertised to the kids themselves… but because of kid #1, I know they are.

OP here, that could be it.

Thanks to the other PPs too. I don’t think the leadership club in this case is code for behavior improvement—I know the kids and they are good kids.

Exclusive clubs are not the same as ability-based, open-through-competition clubs. Teachers inviting certain kids quietly is problematic in elementary in my opinion. Letting kids try and fail is a good exercise. But creating opportunities only for certain kids and quietly/almost secretly is quite another. I don’t know exactly what’s happening though and didn’t want to jump to conclusions.

But the point is that some of the "exclusive clubs" are things that the kids implicitly auditioned for via their classes (DCPS math bowl, DCPS Google competition, Battle of the Books, DCPS 5th Grade All Star Choir). The math instructional coach, the music teacher, etc don't need to do sham auditions, because they already know which kids can do math, read books quickly, sing well, etc. Your kid was eligible and considered, he just didn't get it.

NP. I don't know about this. Some of this stuff, yes, teachers will know because kids are explicitly tested in a variety of ways (homework, in class small groups, iReady diagnostics, RCTs, etc.). So yes, if the school does a club for kids who are advanced in math and only offers it to the kids testing above a certain level in math, that makes sense.

But for categories, I think you need a more explicit try out. Some kids sing very well but are shy during music class and sing quietly or hide in the back. That's actually exactly the sort of kid who would benefit from being singled out for something like an after school choir. Not 5th Grade All Star Choir but a club specific to the school. Or with writing -- some kids write well but struggle with the structured writing they are prompted to do in school. If you're doing a creative writing club after school, you should base it on an open writing assignment that allows kids to show off their ability/creativity, not on how well they answer curriculum based reading comprehension questions in ELA.

And OP said this club was for leadership. I actually think basing that on teacher selection instead of an application process is really dicy because in elementary, kids with "leadership" qualities are sometimes just popular kids. They tend to be the oldest in the grade, for boys the tallest or most athletic, for girls the prettiest. This is why we don't let 3rd graders vote (though many adults don't do any better than this). If I was creating a leadership club at an elementary school, I would have a formal application process where kids explained in their own words what makes a good leader, what they think it means to have strength of character, be persuasive, or what obligations leaders have to the people they lead. Some of the popular kids likely would do well on that application, but I bet you'd also discover some of the kids outside of that group have a lot to offer and deserve an opportunity to hone those leadership skills. Otherwise you are just reinforcing the shallow preferences of school popularity, not really helping to build strong leaders.

All of this was written by someone who is clearly not a teacher.

I was a teacher for years. Teachers understand each kid very well, and can see through all of this.

Teachers also have a LOT of exposure to parents who don't have a good grasp on how their kids compare to the rest of the kids.

I will say in DCPS it is very difficult to get a feel for how my kids compare to the rest of the kids. The school rarely shares the information they have that compares my kid to others and instead just compares my kid to mushy "meeting expectations" benchmarks on the 1-4 scale. CAPE testing was one of the few times I got information that explicitly compared my kid to others. Another was a rare time that the school shared the distribution of iready diagnostic scores, and that was only because parents were complaining about a change in curriculum and the school wanted to push back and show that scores increased. I realized after awhile I'd get better info from my kids because they know what reading and math groups they are in. Even if the teachers won't tell us whether our kids are in the highest group and just call the groups different cutesy animal names, the kids know where they stand.

Teachers have no interest in telling parents "hey, you have an above average kid, with 15 kids above and 10 below in this classroom." that's not a pleasant or appropriate conversation to have with a parent.

However, teachers do know how the kids rank, and they use that information all the time.

Right. But I was responding to the gripe that parents do not have a good grasp on where their kid stands and make unreasonable requests. If the school only compares the kid to benchmarks, it's really hard to tell, especially if the kid is performing well against the benchmarks at a school with other good students. They could be average, they could be close to the top of the class, and either way still get a 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our school does have some things like this, but other things are mentioned to kids themselves and parents are only contacted if their kid indicates interest. If you have a kid that doesn’t always volunteer themselves and/or just doesn’t pay a ton of attention, that’s another possibility. One of my kids is invited to do everything while another is barely cognizant that the activities exist; if it weren’t for kid #1, I’d think opportunities weren’t advertised to the kids themselves… but because of kid #1, I know they are.

OP here, that could be it.

Thanks to the other PPs too. I don’t think the leadership club in this case is code for behavior improvement—I know the kids and they are good kids.

Exclusive clubs are not the same as ability-based, open-through-competition clubs. Teachers inviting certain kids quietly is problematic in elementary in my opinion. Letting kids try and fail is a good exercise. But creating opportunities only for certain kids and quietly/almost secretly is quite another. I don’t know exactly what’s happening though and didn’t want to jump to conclusions.

But the point is that some of the "exclusive clubs" are things that the kids implicitly auditioned for via their classes (DCPS math bowl, DCPS Google competition, Battle of the Books, DCPS 5th Grade All Star Choir). The math instructional coach, the music teacher, etc don't need to do sham auditions, because they already know which kids can do math, read books quickly, sing well, etc. Your kid was eligible and considered, he just didn't get it.

What does “implicitly auditioned” mean? Shouldn’t the kids and parents (in elementary) be told these opportunities exist? You can’t compete for or be motivated by something if you don’t know about it. I’m perfectly fine with my kid being told you’re not good enough for this if that’s the case, but that’s not what happened.

It means teachers have access to all kinds of information about your kid and they place them into the opportunities based on that. Like at our school, the kids who score above a certain threshold on the assessments get to have a special math club, those who score above a certain number on ELA get to join a book club.

This. The teachers all know who the top kids. At our school, the group of top kids in reading had a book club while the other kids worked on reading skills. They also got to do story time to the lower grades and some other things.

Let it rest, OP. Yoir kid just didn’t make the cut. It’s OK and life. Other PP is right. The school and teachers don’t announce such things because parents will be emailing and calling ad nauseum about getting their kid in.

I just see it as a sort of differentiation in the elementary level.

Dude. This is a public elementary school in a high poverty city. Not Phillips Andover.

OP here. THANK YOU, PP!

My kid is actually high achieving and the one thing teachers always comment on are his inclusive friendship style and leadership qualities. He’s fairly popular, if on the geeky side, and up to this year, was having a great time in school. And we are not poor, but yes, I do wonder what the kids whose parents cannot get involved are missing.

I talked to some other parents on the playground last night and it turns out this has been noticed by others too. We agreed to talk again and say something to admin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our school does have some things like this, but other things are mentioned to kids themselves and parents are only contacted if their kid indicates interest. If you have a kid that doesn’t always volunteer themselves and/or just doesn’t pay a ton of attention, that’s another possibility. One of my kids is invited to do everything while another is barely cognizant that the activities exist; if it weren’t for kid #1, I’d think opportunities weren’t advertised to the kids themselves… but because of kid #1, I know they are.

OP here, that could be it.

Thanks to the other PPs too. I don’t think the leadership club in this case is code for behavior improvement—I know the kids and they are good kids.

Exclusive clubs are not the same as ability-based, open-through-competition clubs. Teachers inviting certain kids quietly is problematic in elementary in my opinion. Letting kids try and fail is a good exercise. But creating opportunities only for certain kids and quietly/almost secretly is quite another. I don’t know exactly what’s happening though and didn’t want to jump to conclusions.

But the point is that some of the "exclusive clubs" are things that the kids implicitly auditioned for via their classes (DCPS math bowl, DCPS Google competition, Battle of the Books, DCPS 5th Grade All Star Choir). The math instructional coach, the music teacher, etc don't need to do sham auditions, because they already know which kids can do math, read books quickly, sing well, etc. Your kid was eligible and considered, he just didn't get it.

What does “implicitly auditioned” mean? Shouldn’t the kids and parents (in elementary) be told these opportunities exist? You can’t compete for or be motivated by something if you don’t know about it. I’m perfectly fine with my kid being told you’re not good enough for this if that’s the case, but that’s not what happened.

It means teachers have access to all kinds of information about your kid and they place them into the opportunities based on that. Like at our school, the kids who score above a certain threshold on the assessments get to have a special math club, those who score above a certain number on ELA get to join a book club.

This. The teachers all know who the top kids. At our school, the group of top kids in reading had a book club while the other kids worked on reading skills. They also got to do story time to the lower grades and some other things.

Let it rest, OP. Yoir kid just didn’t make the cut. It’s OK and life. Other PP is right. The school and teachers don’t announce such things because parents will be emailing and calling ad nauseum about getting their kid in.

I just see it as a sort of differentiation in the elementary level.

Dude. This is a public elementary school in a high poverty city. Not Phillips Andover.

OP here. THANK YOU, PP!

My kid is actually high achieving and the one thing teachers always comment on are his inclusive friendship style and leadership qualities. He’s fairly popular, if on the geeky side, and up to this year, was having a great time in school. And we are not poor, but yes, I do wonder what the kids whose parents cannot get involved are missing.

I talked to some other parents on the playground last night and it turns out this has been noticed by others too. We agreed to talk again and say something to admin.

Despite some of the pretty mean spirited comments by people cosplaying as teachers there are some useful comments but… this comment pretty much confirms that the leadership club is a “center for kids who we would like not to crime good and do other things good too.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our school does have some things like this, but other things are mentioned to kids themselves and parents are only contacted if their kid indicates interest. If you have a kid that doesn’t always volunteer themselves and/or just doesn’t pay a ton of attention, that’s another possibility. One of my kids is invited to do everything while another is barely cognizant that the activities exist; if it weren’t for kid #1, I’d think opportunities weren’t advertised to the kids themselves… but because of kid #1, I know they are.

OP here, that could be it.

Thanks to the other PPs too. I don’t think the leadership club in this case is code for behavior improvement—I know the kids and they are good kids.

Exclusive clubs are not the same as ability-based, open-through-competition clubs. Teachers inviting certain kids quietly is problematic in elementary in my opinion. Letting kids try and fail is a good exercise. But creating opportunities only for certain kids and quietly/almost secretly is quite another. I don’t know exactly what’s happening though and didn’t want to jump to conclusions.

But the point is that some of the "exclusive clubs" are things that the kids implicitly auditioned for via their classes (DCPS math bowl, DCPS Google competition, Battle of the Books, DCPS 5th Grade All Star Choir). The math instructional coach, the music teacher, etc don't need to do sham auditions, because they already know which kids can do math, read books quickly, sing well, etc. Your kid was eligible and considered, he just didn't get it.

What does “implicitly auditioned” mean? Shouldn’t the kids and parents (in elementary) be told these opportunities exist? You can’t compete for or be motivated by something if you don’t know about it. I’m perfectly fine with my kid being told you’re not good enough for this if that’s the case, but that’s not what happened.

It means teachers have access to all kinds of information about your kid and they place them into the opportunities based on that. Like at our school, the kids who score above a certain threshold on the assessments get to have a special math club, those who score above a certain number on ELA get to join a book club.

I'll also add that these are not "advertised" and I know certain parents who would flip their [lid] if they found out their kid wasn't included. That's probably why they aren't advertised. But they are wonderful opportunities for the kids involved.

They should be advertised. Kids should know that if they don’t do well, they don’t get access to opportunities. They shouldn’t find out about the opportunities third hand because teachers don’t want to deal with kids and parents.

The bigotry of low expectations!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our school does have some things like this, but other things are mentioned to kids themselves and parents are only contacted if their kid indicates interest. If you have a kid that doesn’t always volunteer themselves and/or just doesn’t pay a ton of attention, that’s another possibility. One of my kids is invited to do everything while another is barely cognizant that the activities exist; if it weren’t for kid #1, I’d think opportunities weren’t advertised to the kids themselves… but because of kid #1, I know they are.

OP here, that could be it.

Thanks to the other PPs too. I don’t think the leadership club in this case is code for behavior improvement—I know the kids and they are good kids.

Exclusive clubs are not the same as ability-based, open-through-competition clubs. Teachers inviting certain kids quietly is problematic in elementary in my opinion. Letting kids try and fail is a good exercise. But creating opportunities only for certain kids and quietly/almost secretly is quite another. I don’t know exactly what’s happening though and didn’t want to jump to conclusions.

But the point is that some of the "exclusive clubs" are things that the kids implicitly auditioned for via their classes (DCPS math bowl, DCPS Google competition, Battle of the Books, DCPS 5th Grade All Star Choir). The math instructional coach, the music teacher, etc don't need to do sham auditions, because they already know which kids can do math, read books quickly, sing well, etc. Your kid was eligible and considered, he just didn't get it.

What does “implicitly auditioned” mean? Shouldn’t the kids and parents (in elementary) be told these opportunities exist? You can’t compete for or be motivated by something if you don’t know about it. I’m perfectly fine with my kid being told you’re not good enough for this if that’s the case, but that’s not what happened.

It means teachers have access to all kinds of information about your kid and they place them into the opportunities based on that. Like at our school, the kids who score above a certain threshold on the assessments get to have a special math club, those who score above a certain number on ELA get to join a book club.

I'll also add that these are not "advertised" and I know certain parents who would flip their [lid] if they found out their kid wasn't included. That's probably why they aren't advertised. But they are wonderful opportunities for the kids involved.

They should be advertised. Kids should know that if they don’t do well, they don’t get access to opportunities. They shouldn’t find out about the opportunities third hand because teachers don’t want to deal with kids and parents.

The bigotry of low expectations!

Again, many KIDS will know about these opportunities. My kid's school announces the results of things others have mentioned -- Math Bowl, Google Math Comp, Battle of the Books -- on the loudspeaker during morning announcements. Parents not knowing and kids not knowing are two different things.

For all the people bashing teachers, keep in mind teachers would be the ones ultimately picking no matter what selection metric was used. Yes, schools should have clubs/opportunities for all kids. My school has plenty: 3 different choirs even for kids who like to sing. But that's very different than whether it's OK for schools to have exclusive clubs that they don't tell all parents about or have formal auditions for and, to me, the answer there is a resounding yes. Even if OP is sad her kid didn't get picked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our school does have some things like this, but other things are mentioned to kids themselves and parents are only contacted if their kid indicates interest. If you have a kid that doesn’t always volunteer themselves and/or just doesn’t pay a ton of attention, that’s another possibility. One of my kids is invited to do everything while another is barely cognizant that the activities exist; if it weren’t for kid #1, I’d think opportunities weren’t advertised to the kids themselves… but because of kid #1, I know they are.

OP here, that could be it.

Thanks to the other PPs too. I don’t think the leadership club in this case is code for behavior improvement—I know the kids and they are good kids.

Exclusive clubs are not the same as ability-based, open-through-competition clubs. Teachers inviting certain kids quietly is problematic in elementary in my opinion. Letting kids try and fail is a good exercise. But creating opportunities only for certain kids and quietly/almost secretly is quite another. I don’t know exactly what’s happening though and didn’t want to jump to conclusions.

But the point is that some of the "exclusive clubs" are things that the kids implicitly auditioned for via their classes (DCPS math bowl, DCPS Google competition, Battle of the Books, DCPS 5th Grade All Star Choir). The math instructional coach, the music teacher, etc don't need to do sham auditions, because they already know which kids can do math, read books quickly, sing well, etc. Your kid was eligible and considered, he just didn't get it.

What does “implicitly auditioned” mean? Shouldn’t the kids and parents (in elementary) be told these opportunities exist? You can’t compete for or be motivated by something if you don’t know about it. I’m perfectly fine with my kid being told you’re not good enough for this if that’s the case, but that’s not what happened.

It means teachers have access to all kinds of information about your kid and they place them into the opportunities based on that. Like at our school, the kids who score above a certain threshold on the assessments get to have a special math club, those who score above a certain number on ELA get to join a book club.

I'll also add that these are not "advertised" and I know certain parents who would flip their [lid] if they found out their kid wasn't included. That's probably why they aren't advertised. But they are wonderful opportunities for the kids involved.

They should be advertised. Kids should know that if they don’t do well, they don’t get access to opportunities. They shouldn’t find out about the opportunities third hand because teachers don’t want to deal with kids and parents.

The bigotry of low expectations!

Again, many KIDS will know about these opportunities. My kid's school announces the results of things others have mentioned -- Math Bowl, Google Math Comp, Battle of the Books -- on the loudspeaker during morning announcements. Parents not knowing and kids not knowing are two different things.

For all the people bashing teachers, keep in mind teachers would be the ones ultimately picking no matter what selection metric was used. Yes, schools should have clubs/opportunities for all kids. My school has plenty: 3 different choirs even for kids who like to sing. But that's very different than whether it's OK for schools to have exclusive clubs that they don't tell all parents about or have formal auditions for and, to me, the answer there is a resounding yes. Even if OP is sad her kid didn't get picked.

Kids caring and parents caring also seem like different things -- kids seem to just accept this stuff, but ive seen fellow parents really freak out when they find out their kids isn't included in something like an enrichment. and actually, many times these opportunities happen, are amazing, and then are taken away, and I wonder if some of that is because the other parents are complaining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our school does have some things like this, but other things are mentioned to kids themselves and parents are only contacted if their kid indicates interest. If you have a kid that doesn’t always volunteer themselves and/or just doesn’t pay a ton of attention, that’s another possibility. One of my kids is invited to do everything while another is barely cognizant that the activities exist; if it weren’t for kid #1, I’d think opportunities weren’t advertised to the kids themselves… but because of kid #1, I know they are.

OP here, that could be it.

Thanks to the other PPs too. I don’t think the leadership club in this case is code for behavior improvement—I know the kids and they are good kids.

Exclusive clubs are not the same as ability-based, open-through-competition clubs. Teachers inviting certain kids quietly is problematic in elementary in my opinion. Letting kids try and fail is a good exercise. But creating opportunities only for certain kids and quietly/almost secretly is quite another. I don’t know exactly what’s happening though and didn’t want to jump to conclusions.

But the point is that some of the "exclusive clubs" are things that the kids implicitly auditioned for via their classes (DCPS math bowl, DCPS Google competition, Battle of the Books, DCPS 5th Grade All Star Choir). The math instructional coach, the music teacher, etc don't need to do sham auditions, because they already know which kids can do math, read books quickly, sing well, etc. Your kid was eligible and considered, he just didn't get it.

NP. I don't know about this. Some of this stuff, yes, teachers will know because kids are explicitly tested in a variety of ways (homework, in class small groups, iReady diagnostics, RCTs, etc.). So yes, if the school does a club for kids who are advanced in math and only offers it to the kids testing above a certain level in math, that makes sense.

But for categories, I think you need a more explicit try out. Some kids sing very well but are shy during music class and sing quietly or hide in the back. That's actually exactly the sort of kid who would benefit from being singled out for something like an after school choir. Not 5th Grade All Star Choir but a club specific to the school. Or with writing -- some kids write well but struggle with the structured writing they are prompted to do in school. If you're doing a creative writing club after school, you should base it on an open writing assignment that allows kids to show off their ability/creativity, not on how well they answer curriculum based reading comprehension questions in ELA.

And OP said this club was for leadership. I actually think basing that on teacher selection instead of an application process is really dicy because in elementary, kids with "leadership" qualities are sometimes just popular kids. They tend to be the oldest in the grade, for boys the tallest or most athletic, for girls the prettiest. This is why we don't let 3rd graders vote (though many adults don't do any better than this). If I was creating a leadership club at an elementary school, I would have a formal application process where kids explained in their own words what makes a good leader, what they think it means to have strength of character, be persuasive, or what obligations leaders have to the people they lead. Some of the popular kids likely would do well on that application, but I bet you'd also discover some of the kids outside of that group have a lot to offer and deserve an opportunity to hone those leadership skills. Otherwise you are just reinforcing the shallow preferences of school popularity, not really helping to build strong leaders.

All of this was written by someone who is clearly not a teacher.

I was a teacher for years. Teachers understand each kid very well, and can see through all of this.

Teachers also have a LOT of exposure to parents who don't have a good grasp on how their kids compare to the rest of the kids.

I will say in DCPS it is very difficult to get a feel for how my kids compare to the rest of the kids. The school rarely shares the information they have that compares my kid to others and instead just compares my kid to mushy "meeting expectations" benchmarks on the 1-4 scale. CAPE testing was one of the few times I got information that explicitly compared my kid to others. Another was a rare time that the school shared the distribution of iready diagnostic scores, and that was only because parents were complaining about a change in curriculum and the school wanted to push back and show that scores increased. I realized after awhile I'd get better info from my kids because they know what reading and math groups they are in. Even if the teachers won't tell us whether our kids are in the highest group and just call the groups different cutesy animal names, the kids know where they stand.

Teachers have no interest in telling parents "hey, you have an above average kid, with 15 kids above and 10 below in this classroom." that's not a pleasant or appropriate conversation to have with a parent.

However, teachers do know how the kids rank, and they use that information all the time.

Right. But I was responding to the gripe that parents do not have a good grasp on where their kid stands and make unreasonable requests. If the school only compares the kid to benchmarks, it's really hard to tell, especially if the kid is performing well against the benchmarks at a school with other good students. They could be average, they could be close to the top of the class, and either way still get a 3.

Thr standardized tests in DCPS give you percent rankings of kids against all kids who take the test at that age. But you won’t get grade level data comparisons against other kids in the school. Quite frankly that’s inappropriate and can become identifiable. No teacher will tell you that, and it’s not your business. But my kid’s iReady tells me where they rank against all kids, and that’s great data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our school does have some things like this, but other things are mentioned to kids themselves and parents are only contacted if their kid indicates interest. If you have a kid that doesn’t always volunteer themselves and/or just doesn’t pay a ton of attention, that’s another possibility. One of my kids is invited to do everything while another is barely cognizant that the activities exist; if it weren’t for kid #1, I’d think opportunities weren’t advertised to the kids themselves… but because of kid #1, I know they are.

OP here, that could be it.

Thanks to the other PPs too. I don’t think the leadership club in this case is code for behavior improvement—I know the kids and they are good kids.

Exclusive clubs are not the same as ability-based, open-through-competition clubs. Teachers inviting certain kids quietly is problematic in elementary in my opinion. Letting kids try and fail is a good exercise. But creating opportunities only for certain kids and quietly/almost secretly is quite another. I don’t know exactly what’s happening though and didn’t want to jump to conclusions.

But the point is that some of the "exclusive clubs" are things that the kids implicitly auditioned for via their classes (DCPS math bowl, DCPS Google competition, Battle of the Books, DCPS 5th Grade All Star Choir). The math instructional coach, the music teacher, etc don't need to do sham auditions, because they already know which kids can do math, read books quickly, sing well, etc. Your kid was eligible and considered, he just didn't get it.

What does “implicitly auditioned” mean? Shouldn’t the kids and parents (in elementary) be told these opportunities exist? You can’t compete for or be motivated by something if you don’t know about it. I’m perfectly fine with my kid being told you’re not good enough for this if that’s the case, but that’s not what happened.

It means teachers have access to all kinds of information about your kid and they place them into the opportunities based on that. Like at our school, the kids who score above a certain threshold on the assessments get to have a special math club, those who score above a certain number on ELA get to join a book club.

I'll also add that these are not "advertised" and I know certain parents who would flip their [lid] if they found out their kid wasn't included. That's probably why they aren't advertised. But they are wonderful opportunities for the kids involved.

They should be advertised. Kids should know that if they don’t do well, they don’t get access to opportunities. They shouldn’t find out about the opportunities third hand because teachers don’t want to deal with kids and parents.

The bigotry of low expectations!

Again, many KIDS will know about these opportunities. My kid's school announces the results of things others have mentioned -- Math Bowl, Google Math Comp, Battle of the Books -- on the loudspeaker during morning announcements. Parents not knowing and kids not knowing are two different things.

For all the people bashing teachers, keep in mind teachers would be the ones ultimately picking no matter what selection metric was used. Yes, schools should have clubs/opportunities for all kids. My school has plenty: 3 different choirs even for kids who like to sing. But that's very different than whether it's OK for schools to have exclusive clubs that they don't tell all parents about or have formal auditions for and, to me, the answer there is a resounding yes. Even if OP is sad her kid didn't get picked.

Kids caring and parents caring also seem like different things -- kids seem to just accept this stuff, but ive seen fellow parents really freak out when they find out their kids isn't included in something like an enrichment. and actually, many times these opportunities happen, are amazing, and then are taken away, and I wonder if some of that is because the other parents are complaining.

These problems would be solved with transparency. If you simply told parents "this is what is available, here is how selection happens" then you wouldn't have the problem of parents finding out later on that there is some opportunity their kid never had access to and then feeling it was unfair because they have no idea how kids were chosen and whether it was just a question of signing up by a certain date or a teacher selection or expressing an interest or what.

But schools don't like being transparent about things like this because that would mean they'd have to be accountable for it. If they told parents "they is based on academic performance" then parents might ask how that is assessed and what the cutoffs were for inclusion, which, if the school is actually cherry picking students based on teacher favorites and not using consistent metrics.

Schools will try to tell you "oh no it's better if this process is totally opaque and happens without parents knowing because parents just complain and are a problem." But if you have a fair process using clearly articulated metrics that are consistently applied, parents will accept it. It's just often there are no clear metrics and the process is intentionally vague in order to ensure teachers can include kids they like and exclude kids they don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our school does have some things like this, but other things are mentioned to kids themselves and parents are only contacted if their kid indicates interest. If you have a kid that doesn’t always volunteer themselves and/or just doesn’t pay a ton of attention, that’s another possibility. One of my kids is invited to do everything while another is barely cognizant that the activities exist; if it weren’t for kid #1, I’d think opportunities weren’t advertised to the kids themselves… but because of kid #1, I know they are.

OP here, that could be it.

Thanks to the other PPs too. I don’t think the leadership club in this case is code for behavior improvement—I know the kids and they are good kids.

Exclusive clubs are not the same as ability-based, open-through-competition clubs. Teachers inviting certain kids quietly is problematic in elementary in my opinion. Letting kids try and fail is a good exercise. But creating opportunities only for certain kids and quietly/almost secretly is quite another. I don’t know exactly what’s happening though and didn’t want to jump to conclusions.

But the point is that some of the "exclusive clubs" are things that the kids implicitly auditioned for via their classes (DCPS math bowl, DCPS Google competition, Battle of the Books, DCPS 5th Grade All Star Choir). The math instructional coach, the music teacher, etc don't need to do sham auditions, because they already know which kids can do math, read books quickly, sing well, etc. Your kid was eligible and considered, he just didn't get it.

What does “implicitly auditioned” mean? Shouldn’t the kids and parents (in elementary) be told these opportunities exist? You can’t compete for or be motivated by something if you don’t know about it. I’m perfectly fine with my kid being told you’re not good enough for this if that’s the case, but that’s not what happened.

It means teachers have access to all kinds of information about your kid and they place them into the opportunities based on that. Like at our school, the kids who score above a certain threshold on the assessments get to have a special math club, those who score above a certain number on ELA get to join a book club.

I'll also add that these are not "advertised" and I know certain parents who would flip their [lid] if they found out their kid wasn't included. That's probably why they aren't advertised. But they are wonderful opportunities for the kids involved.

They should be advertised. Kids should know that if they don’t do well, they don’t get access to opportunities. They shouldn’t find out about the opportunities third hand because teachers don’t want to deal with kids and parents.

The bigotry of low expectations!

Again, many KIDS will know about these opportunities. My kid's school announces the results of things others have mentioned -- Math Bowl, Google Math Comp, Battle of the Books -- on the loudspeaker during morning announcements. Parents not knowing and kids not knowing are two different things.

For all the people bashing teachers, keep in mind teachers would be the ones ultimately picking no matter what selection metric was used. Yes, schools should have clubs/opportunities for all kids. My school has plenty: 3 different choirs even for kids who like to sing. But that's very different than whether it's OK for schools to have exclusive clubs that they don't tell all parents about or have formal auditions for and, to me, the answer there is a resounding yes. Even if OP is sad her kid didn't get picked.

Kids caring and parents caring also seem like different things -- kids seem to just accept this stuff, but ive seen fellow parents really freak out when they find out their kids isn't included in something like an enrichment. and actually, many times these opportunities happen, are amazing, and then are taken away, and I wonder if some of that is because the other parents are complaining.

These problems would be solved with transparency. If you simply told parents "this is what is available, here is how selection happens" then you wouldn't have the problem of parents finding out later on that there is some opportunity their kid never had access to and then feeling it was unfair because they have no idea how kids were chosen and whether it was just a question of signing up by a certain date or a teacher selection or expressing an interest or what.

But schools don't like being transparent about things like this because that would mean they'd have to be accountable for it. If they told parents "they is based on academic performance" then parents might ask how that is assessed and what the cutoffs were for inclusion, which, if the school is actually cherry picking students based on teacher favorites and not using consistent metrics.

Schools will try to tell you "oh no it's better if this process is totally opaque and happens without parents knowing because parents just complain and are a problem." But if you have a fair process using clearly articulated metrics that are consistently applied, parents will accept it. It's just often there are no clear metrics and the process is intentionally vague in order to ensure teachers can include kids they like and exclude kids they don't.

Yes, instead you'd have parents lobbying their teachers and complaining their kids wasn't selected. Sometimes it's not about a specific cut-off, it's about teachers exercising their discretion. That's also what happens with cut sports, the roles in the school musical and basically everything else in life... and that's OK. The notion that everything can be broken down into a rubric with black and white performance selection metrics is crazy and the fact that some parents will expect it is what makes schools stop volunteering information and, worse yet, opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our school does have some things like this, but other things are mentioned to kids themselves and parents are only contacted if their kid indicates interest. If you have a kid that doesn’t always volunteer themselves and/or just doesn’t pay a ton of attention, that’s another possibility. One of my kids is invited to do everything while another is barely cognizant that the activities exist; if it weren’t for kid #1, I’d think opportunities weren’t advertised to the kids themselves… but because of kid #1, I know they are.

OP here, that could be it.

Thanks to the other PPs too. I don’t think the leadership club in this case is code for behavior improvement—I know the kids and they are good kids.

Exclusive clubs are not the same as ability-based, open-through-competition clubs. Teachers inviting certain kids quietly is problematic in elementary in my opinion. Letting kids try and fail is a good exercise. But creating opportunities only for certain kids and quietly/almost secretly is quite another. I don’t know exactly what’s happening though and didn’t want to jump to conclusions.

But the point is that some of the "exclusive clubs" are things that the kids implicitly auditioned for via their classes (DCPS math bowl, DCPS Google competition, Battle of the Books, DCPS 5th Grade All Star Choir). The math instructional coach, the music teacher, etc don't need to do sham auditions, because they already know which kids can do math, read books quickly, sing well, etc. Your kid was eligible and considered, he just didn't get it.

NP. I don't know about this. Some of this stuff, yes, teachers will know because kids are explicitly tested in a variety of ways (homework, in class small groups, iReady diagnostics, RCTs, etc.). So yes, if the school does a club for kids who are advanced in math and only offers it to the kids testing above a certain level in math, that makes sense.

But for categories, I think you need a more explicit try out. Some kids sing very well but are shy during music class and sing quietly or hide in the back. That's actually exactly the sort of kid who would benefit from being singled out for something like an after school choir. Not 5th Grade All Star Choir but a club specific to the school. Or with writing -- some kids write well but struggle with the structured writing they are prompted to do in school. If you're doing a creative writing club after school, you should base it on an open writing assignment that allows kids to show off their ability/creativity, not on how well they answer curriculum based reading comprehension questions in ELA.

And OP said this club was for leadership. I actually think basing that on teacher selection instead of an application process is really dicy because in elementary, kids with "leadership" qualities are sometimes just popular kids. They tend to be the oldest in the grade, for boys the tallest or most athletic, for girls the prettiest. This is why we don't let 3rd graders vote (though many adults don't do any better than this). If I was creating a leadership club at an elementary school, I would have a formal application process where kids explained in their own words what makes a good leader, what they think it means to have strength of character, be persuasive, or what obligations leaders have to the people they lead. Some of the popular kids likely would do well on that application, but I bet you'd also discover some of the kids outside of that group have a lot to offer and deserve an opportunity to hone those leadership skills. Otherwise you are just reinforcing the shallow preferences of school popularity, not really helping to build strong leaders.

All of this was written by someone who is clearly not a teacher.

I was a teacher for years. Teachers understand each kid very well, and can see through all of this.

Teachers also have a LOT of exposure to parents who don't have a good grasp on how their kids compare to the rest of the kids.

I will say in DCPS it is very difficult to get a feel for how my kids compare to the rest of the kids. The school rarely shares the information they have that compares my kid to others and instead just compares my kid to mushy "meeting expectations" benchmarks on the 1-4 scale. CAPE testing was one of the few times I got information that explicitly compared my kid to others. Another was a rare time that the school shared the distribution of iready diagnostic scores, and that was only because parents were complaining about a change in curriculum and the school wanted to push back and show that scores increased. I realized after awhile I'd get better info from my kids because they know what reading and math groups they are in. Even if the teachers won't tell us whether our kids are in the highest group and just call the groups different cutesy animal names, the kids know where they stand.

Teachers have no interest in telling parents "hey, you have an above average kid, with 15 kids above and 10 below in this classroom." that's not a pleasant or appropriate conversation to have with a parent.

However, teachers do know how the kids rank, and they use that information all the time.

Right. But I was responding to the gripe that parents do not have a good grasp on where their kid stands and make unreasonable requests. If the school only compares the kid to benchmarks, it's really hard to tell, especially if the kid is performing well against the benchmarks at a school with other good students. They could be average, they could be close to the top of the class, and either way still get a 3.

Thr standardized tests in DCPS give you percent rankings of kids against all kids who take the test at that age. But you won’t get grade level data comparisons against other kids in the school. Quite frankly that’s inappropriate and can become identifiable. No teacher will tell you that, and it’s not your business. But my kid’s iReady tells me where they rank against all kids, and that’s great data.

You actually DO get CAPE data that specifically compares you to the other students in your kid's grade at your kid's school. I was kind of startled when I got my first score report, but that's exactly what's available. I have to assume everyone here saying you never get this information has very young kids who have never taken CAPE.