what schools feed into Deal right now and what changes are on the horizon?

[Anonymous]

Show me the science. Just give a link to one of these so called studies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Deal is almost twice the size of similar competing schools (Latin, Hardy, Stuart-Hobson).

Well I for one am sick of "so-called" experts telling parents what's best. Deal works for my kid in spite of its size.

Yes, damn those scholars and their studies and their proof and all that rot. The world looks totally flat from your house, right?

Well SH and Hardy are about twice the size of Eliot-Hine so your child should go there right? The smaller the better right? Let me know how that works out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Show me the science. Just give a link to one of these so called studies.

No problem. These should keep you busy, but there are dozens (if not hundreds) more if you need them.


http://www.apexsql.com/_brian/School%20Size%20Matters.pdf

http://www.temple.edu/lss/pdf/ReviewOfTheResearchOxley.pdf

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ853523&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ853523

http://www.glenmohr.com/glenmohr/2005/05/28/school-size-school-climate-and-student-performance/

http://delta.cs.vt.edu/edu/size.html

[Anonymous]

Here's something Secretary Duncan has said about the class size debate:

http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/new-normal-doing-more-less-secretary-arne-duncans-remarks-american-enterprise-institut

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whoever is touting research about small schools being better should remember that the Gates Foundation, after dumping mega money behind the small school concept, and disrupting the educational processes of untold school districts in the process, walked away from the whole mess a few years ago after concluding that smaller schools did not automatically translate into better educational outcomes.

Gates walked away from class-size reduction. Not the same thing as the small schools movement. Read the following grantee announcement from as recently as June of last year, available on the Gates Foundation website:

GRANTEE ANNOUNCEMENT
June 22, 2010
New Study Finds That New York City’s Small High Schools Markedly Increase Student’s Academic Performance and Graduation Rates

Improvements seen for broad range of students, including African-American and Hispanic males, less-proficient students, and low-income students

NEW YORK -- MDRC, a nonprofit, nonpartisan education and social policy research firm in New York City, released a new report today showing that small high schools in New York City increase students’ likelihood of earning credits, progressing through school, and graduating in four years with Regents diplomas. This unprecedented study provides convincing evidence that systematically replacing very big failing high schools with a large number of small public high schools can narrow the educational attainment gap and markedly improve graduation prospects, particularly for disadvantaged students.

To read the full release, visit the MDRC website.

###
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works to help all people lead healthy, productive lives. In developing countries, it focuses on improving people’s health and giving them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty. In the United States, it seeks to ensure that all people—especially those with the fewest resources—have access to the opportunities they need to succeed in school and life. Based in Seattle, Washington, the foundation is led by CEO Jeff Raikes and Co-chair William H. Gates Sr., under the direction of Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Deal is almost twice the size of similar competing schools (Latin, Hardy, Stuart-Hobson).

Well I for one am sick of "so-called" experts telling parents what's best. Deal works for my kid in spite of its size.

Yes, damn those scholars and their studies and their proof and all that rot. The world looks totally flat from your house, right?

Well SH and Hardy are about twice the size of Eliot-Hine so your child should go there right? The smaller the better right? Let me know how that works out.

Oh, I'll be sending my children to a much smaller school than SH, Hardy, or Eliot-Hine.

[Anonymous]

I actually read through those articles because I found them interesting. But in practicality their theories don't hold true of smaller schools would be doing better.

Deal is doing better than Eliot-Hine, which has the target (or smaller) student population then these studies show work.

C.W. Harris is half the size of Lafayette but their test scores don't even hit 40%.

I don't think that school size is any predictor as to what education your child will receive. It may not be a fit for your child but that doesn't mean that it doesn't educate children well.

[Anonymous]

Op

Anonymous wrote:I actually read through those articles because I found them interesting. But in practicality their theories don't hold true of smaller schools would be doing better.

Deal is doing better than Eliot-Hine, which has the target (or smaller) student population then these studies show work.

C.W. Harris is half the size of Lafayette but their test scores don't even hit 40%.

I don't think that school size is any predictor as to what education your child will receive. It may not be a fit for your child but that doesn't mean that it doesn't educate children well.

I suppose it depends on the way you define "educate children well". I haven't done it myself, but I wonder if you start pulling apart subgroups and looking at actual GROWTH in student achievement, Eliot Hine just maybe beats Deal over the last five years or so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually read through those articles because I found them interesting. But in practicality their theories don't hold true of smaller schools would be doing better.

Deal is doing better than Eliot-Hine, which has the target (or smaller) student population then these studies show work.

C.W. Harris is half the size of Lafayette but their test scores don't even hit 40%.

I don't think that school size is any predictor as to what education your child will receive. It may not be a fit for your child but that doesn't mean that it doesn't educate children well.

You don't appear to understand the conclusions. The theories have been proven true, this part is not open to debate. It sounds like you interpret this to mean that any given small school is better than any given large school? That's a misunderstanding of how statistics and populations work. It also conflates the size of the population with its demographics. The more reasonable conclusion is that, for example, Deal would produce better results if it were two schools, each half the current size. Other factors being equal or similar, smaller is better. It's been a fallacy of the first 50 years of 20th education to believe that building larger schools increased student opportunities and achievement, in fact it had the reverse effect. A MS doesn't need its own film production theatre & lab, for example. Instead needs to teach language arts, math, science, social studies, history, and foreign language with excellence to well under a thousand students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually read through those articles because I found them interesting. But in practicality their theories don't hold true of smaller schools would be doing better.

Deal is doing better than Eliot-Hine, which has the target (or smaller) student population then these studies show work.

C.W. Harris is half the size of Lafayette but their test scores don't even hit 40%.

I don't think that school size is any predictor as to what education your child will receive. It may not be a fit for your child but that doesn't mean that it doesn't educate children well.

You don't appear to understand the conclusions. The theories have been proven true, this part is not open to debate. It sounds like you interpret this to mean that any given small school is better than any given large school? That's a misunderstanding of how statistics and populations work. It also conflates the size of the population with its demographics. The more reasonable conclusion is that, for example, Deal would produce better results if it were two schools, each half the current size. Other factors being equal or similar, smaller is better. It's been a fallacy of the first 50 years of 20th education to believe that building larger schools increased student opportunities and achievement, in fact it had the reverse effect. A MS doesn't need its own film production theatre & lab, for example. Instead needs to teach language arts, math, science, social studies, history, and foreign language with excellence to well under a thousand students.

No, I get that and I am actually agreeing with you. Some of the pp posters were saying that because Deal is large and because studies have shown that large schools don't work then Deal doesn't work. I was simply pointing out that looking at size only isn't a predictor of student achievement. There are MS outside of this area which are just as large. They do pods or sort of a school within a school type structure which changes the dynamic of the school. They are able to each to excellence because they use a smaller school style but still have 900+ students.

Does Deal really have a film lab? That is crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually read through those articles because I found them interesting. But in practicality their theories don't hold true of smaller schools would be doing better.

Deal is doing better than Eliot-Hine, which has the target (or smaller) student population then these studies show work.

C.W. Harris is half the size of Lafayette but their test scores don't even hit 40%.

I don't think that school size is any predictor as to what education your child will receive. It may not be a fit for your child but that doesn't mean that it doesn't educate children well.

You don't appear to understand the conclusions. The theories have been proven true, this part is not open to debate. It sounds like you interpret this to mean that any given small school is better than any given large school? That's a misunderstanding of how statistics and populations work. It also conflates the size of the population with its demographics. The more reasonable conclusion is that, for example, Deal would produce better results if it were two schools, each half the current size. Other factors being equal or similar, smaller is better. It's been a fallacy of the first 50 years of 20th education to believe that building larger schools increased student opportunities and achievement, in fact it had the reverse effect. A MS doesn't need its own film production theatre & lab, for example. Instead needs to teach language arts, math, science, social studies, history, and foreign language with excellence to well under a thousand students.

No, I get that and I am actually agreeing with you. Some of the pp posters were saying that because Deal is large and because studies have shown that large schools don't work then Deal doesn't work. I was simply pointing out that looking at size only isn't a predictor of student achievement. There are MS outside of this area which are just as large. They do pods or sort of a school within a school type structure which changes the dynamic of the school. They are able to each to excellence because they use a smaller school style but still have 900+ students.

Does Deal really have a film lab? That is crazy.

I couldn't say, that's a "for example." There seem to be people who tout the economies of scale, because building mega-schools affords the opportunities to build things like film labs. The money would be more wisely spent creating smaller schools with a scholastic climate that fosters excellence in all its students (instead of an elite, which almost always can be predetermined based on race and SES). Thus the achievement gap is perpetuated.

[Anonymous]

Do any of the previous posters even understand how Deal is structured? Do you have kids at Deal? And one of those articles says that a middle school of 800 is acceptable.

[Anonymous]

no film lab or any frills of such kind at Deal. just good basic classrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[There are MS outside of this area which are just as large. They do pods or sort of a school within a school type structure which changes the dynamic of the school. They are able to each to excellence because they use a smaller school style but still have 900+ students.

That's exactly what Deal does. Each grade operates as its own school-within-the school. Each grade is further divided into three discrete teams, members of which tend to take classes together and have the same teachers. Responsibility for student achievement lives at the team level, with supports going up to grade- and school-wide levels. The goal is to have the physical advantages of a large school and the academic and social advantages of small, intense, accountable learning communities.

[Anonymous]

23:07 I generally agree with you.

As an example from other districts in our area, most of the middle schools in the most affluent areas of Fairfax County (Vienna and McLean for example) are in the 800-1100 enrollment range. Large enough to allow programmatic differentiation, specialty classes, etc. So others saying that Deal's enrollment is too big for good educational outcomes does really wash, it is class size and teaming that provide the direct learning environment (as PP said).