Changes in DCPS

[Anonymous]

Magnets, Schmagnets. Strengen and enrich the curriculum of all DCPS schools. Offer Latin, geography, history, literature, art and music. Stop all this obssessive testing. Every student, in every school and every neighborhood will benefit.

[Anonymous]

Strengthen

[Anonymous]

09:57 You get ahead of yourself. Teach these kids how to read, write, speak in proper English and perform basic math tasks and then get back to me with Latin, geography, art and music.

My children would not benefit from the elimination of magnets. My DC is performing at the high school level in math and is in the 3rd grade. These kids have as much right to be catered to as the kids in the 3rd grade who cannot read or do math manipulations at a grade appropriate level. To me the mindset that would eliminate magnet and special programs is equivalent to the flat earth society. The world is not flat and eliminating these programs which are mostly funded through parental fundraising and external grant money not DCPS money will not save the underperforming schools. Those underperforming schools get a disproportionate amount of DC and federal funds as compared to better performing special schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:09:57 You get ahead of yourself. Teach these kids how to read, write, speak in proper English and perform basic math tasks and then get back to me with Latin, geography, art and music.

My children would not benefit from the elimination of magnets. My DC is performing at the high school level in math and is in the 3rd grade. These kids have as much right to be catered to as the kids in the 3rd grade who cannot read nor do math manipulations at a grade appropriate level. To me the mindset that would eliminate magnet and special programs is equivalent to the flat earth society. The world is not flat and eliminating these programs which are mostly funded through parental fundraising and external grant money not DCPS money will not save the underperforming schools. Those underperforming schools get a disproportionate amount of DC and federal funds as compared to better performing special schools.

That’s pretty harsh, but this is an anonymous board and your points are spot on. In a similar vein, Valerie Strauss has a piece today that finishes with this:

“And students, who see little or no pressure to be other than “disengaged lazy whiners” will continue to pay the price for their lack of education, both in college and at work, and we will continue to fall behind in comparison with those countries who realize that student academic achievement has always been, and will always be, mainly dependent on diligent student academic work.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/its-not-all-about-the-teachers/2011/10/03/gIQAPRt7LL_blog.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:09:57 You get ahead of yourself. Teach these kids how to read, write, speak in proper English and perform basic math tasks and then get back to me with Latin, geography, art and music.

My children would not benefit from the elimination of magnets. My DC is performing at the high school level in math and is in the 3rd grade. These kids have as much right to be catered to as the kids in the 3rd grade who cannot read or do math manipulations at a grade appropriate level. To me the mindset that would eliminate magnet and special programs is equivalent to the flat earth society. The world is not flat and eliminating these programs which are mostly funded through parental fundraising and external grant money not DCPS money will not save the underperforming schools. Those underperforming schools get a disproportionate amount of DC and federal funds as compared to better performing special schools.

my child is NOT way above grade level, but I agree totally that bright kids and geniuses need adequate opportunities. We need MORE magnets, imo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not the PP, but the idea that placing a small number of proficient children across a large number of schools is good either for those children or for the children that they are in class with is completely unfounded from reality. Without a critical mass of higher-achieving students at a school, there is essentially no differentiated instruction for the small number of proficieint kids and they stop being proficient. Plus, I'm not aware of any support in the literature showing that a small minority of proficient kids serves to increase the performance of lower-achieving children. I believe that it's the opposite - that going to school with a sufficient number of proficient kids brings up the poorer performing kids, likely because the culture and expectations at the school are then different. This strikes me as a set-up for having a small number of miserable kids who are bored in school and quickly check out or find another school. I would think there are a whole lot of parents out there who would be angry at the idea that their children's education ought to be sacrificed at the alter of neighborhood schools, just so the huge number of poorly performing kids in the class have something to aspire to. And I say this not as a NW parents, but as someone who lives probably pretty close to you and has one kid in a charter and another in an OOB middle school.

Agree with this. The PP you responded to needs to read "A Hope In the Unseen" immediately if they think "spreading the smart kids around" does anything other than cripple their chances. We need to increase middle-class enrollment across the board, not take away advanced learning environments for advanced students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not the PP, but the idea that placing a small number of proficient children across a large number of schools is good either for those children or for the children that they are in class with is completely unfounded from reality. Without a critical mass of higher-achieving students at a school, there is essentially no differentiated instruction for the small number of proficieint kids and they stop being proficient. Plus, I'm not aware of any support in the literature showing that a small minority of proficient kids serves to increase the performance of lower-achieving children. I believe that it's the opposite - that going to school with a sufficient number of proficient kids brings up the poorer performing kids, likely because the culture and expectations at the school are then different. This strikes me as a set-up for having a small number of miserable kids who are bored in school and quickly check out or find another school. I would think there are a whole lot of parents out there who would be angry at the idea that their children's education ought to be sacrificed at the alter of neighborhood schools, just so the huge number of poorly performing kids in the class have something to aspire to. And I say this not as a NW parents, but as someone who lives probably pretty close to you and has one kid in a charter and another in an OOB middle school.

Agree with this. The PP you responded to needs to read "A Hope In the Unseen" immediately if they think "spreading the smart kids around" does anything other than cripple their chances. We need to increase middle-class enrollment across the board, not take away advanced learning environments for advanced students.

OK, I'll say it a third time:

I am the original "Spread around" poster (different from the "do away with magnets" poster) - and I intended it as an example of a very bad idea. Sorry it was misunderstood. Maybe it's an indication of how much we've come to expect to hear really bad ideas about how to improve our schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:09:57 You get ahead of yourself. Teach these kids how to read, write, speak in proper English and perform basic math tasks and then get back to me with Latin, geography, art and music.

My children would not benefit from the elimination of magnets. My DC is performing at the high school level in math and is in the 3rd grade. These kids have as much right to be catered to as the kids in the 3rd grade who cannot read or do math manipulations at a grade appropriate level. To me the mindset that would eliminate magnet and special programs is equivalent to the flat earth society. The world is not flat and eliminating these programs which are mostly funded through parental fundraising and external grant money not DCPS money will not save the underperforming schools. Those underperforming schools get a disproportionate amount of DC and federal funds as compared to better performing special schools.

I'm pro-charter, pro-magnet, etc but that sentence is utterly absurd.

How can you credibly make the argument that kids who cannot read or do math at grade level are in any way being catered to? We've just established from the outset that they are underserved.

[Anonymous]

I would argue that they are badly served. I work in dcps and I see where the majority of funding and resources go: struggling kids. Now is all that focus effective? Not always. I clearly see the focus being on the lowest common denominator. Naturally, teachers are drawn to helping kids who are struggling. It takes training and experience to not let those who already Excel coast where they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would argue that they are badly served. I work in dcps and I see where the majority of funding and resources go: struggling kids. Now is all that focus effective? Not always. I clearly see the focus being on the lowest common denominator. Naturally, teachers are drawn to helping kids who are struggling. It takes training and experience to not let those who already Excel coast where they are.

This is not my experience at all. My DS is in one of the best NW DCPS elementaries and he is struggling and there is no natural or other draw of the teachers to help him. He's getting entirely left behind. At this school (don't know about other NW DCPS elementaries) the natural draw of the teachers is to respond to the students that are getting things most quickly and are easiest to teach. I'm struggling to have the teacher, the principal, and the special needs coordinator even acknowledge the need and when I press they acknowledge it but they don't address it. Everyone on this board is so quick to assume that the neediest are getting the most. That is just simply not the case. If it were, then there wouldn't be so many needy kids in DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would argue that they are badly served. I work in dcps and I see where the majority of funding and resources go: struggling kids. Now is all that focus effective? Not always. I clearly see the focus being on the lowest common denominator. Naturally, teachers are drawn to helping kids who are struggling. It takes training and experience to not let those who already Excel coast where they are.

This is not my experience at all. My DS is in one of the best NW DCPS elementaries and he is struggling and there is no natural or other draw of the teachers to help him. He's getting entirely left behind. At this school (don't know about other NW DCPS elementaries) the natural draw of the teachers is to respond to the students that are getting things most quickly and are easiest to teach. I'm struggling to have the teacher, the principal, and the special needs coordinator even acknowledge the need and when I press they acknowledge it but they don't address it. Everyone on this board is so quick to assume that the neediest are getting the most. That is just simply not the case. If it were, then there wouldn't be so many needy kids in DCPS.

DCPS, like many struggling districts, does best with kids in the middle. Struggling kids require more resources and advanced kids are left to their own devices. (admittedly a gross generalization)

There's little incentive to move strong students even higher. If your child is "on the bubble," that is to say, your child is slightly below proficiency and demonstrates the potential to make it to the proficient level then they gets lots of attention because the school is incentivized to claim another proficient kid. It is a perversion of NCLB and Obama is moving to change it by create incentives for school districts to move all students higher and not simply focus on one measure - proficiency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would argue that they are badly served. I work in dcps and I see where the majority of funding and resources go: struggling kids. Now is all that focus effective? Not always. I clearly see the focus being on the lowest common denominator. Naturally, teachers are drawn to helping kids who are struggling. It takes training and experience to not let those who already Excel coast where they are.

This is not my experience at all. My DS is in one of the best NW DCPS elementaries and he is struggling and there is no natural or other draw of the teachers to help him. He's getting entirely left behind. At this school (don't know about other NW DCPS elementaries) the natural draw of the teachers is to respond to the students that are getting things most quickly and are easiest to teach. I'm struggling to have the teacher, the principal, and the special needs coordinator even acknowledge the need and when I press they acknowledge it but they don't address it. Everyone on this board is so quick to assume that the neediest are getting the most. That is just simply not the case. If it were, then there wouldn't be so many needy kids in DCPS.

DCPS, like many struggling districts, does best with kids in the middle. Struggling kids require more resources and advanced kids are left to their own devices. (admittedly a gross generalization)

There's little incentive to move strong students even higher. If your child is "on the bubble," that is to say, your child is slightly below proficiency and demonstrates the potential to make it to the proficient level then they gets lots of attention because the school is incentivized to claim another proficient kid. It is a perversion of NCLB and Obama is moving to change it by create incentives for school districts to move all students higher and not simply focus on one measure - proficiency.

I wouldn't give his hopey-changeyness so much credit. He can run Arne Duncan, but it's my recollection that actual legislation still comes from Congress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would argue that they are badly served. I work in dcps and I see where the majority of funding and resources go: struggling kids. Now is all that focus effective? Not always. I clearly see the focus being on the lowest common denominator. Naturally, teachers are drawn to helping kids who are struggling. It takes training and experience to not let those who already Excel coast where they are.

Then this points to restructuring the Special Ed services they receive and hiring more competent and experienced teachers and staff. It doesn't mean the kids are being catered to, it means that DCPS is incompetent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:09:57 You get ahead of yourself. Teach these kids how to read, write, speak in proper English and perform basic math tasks and then get back to me with Latin, geography, art and music.

Actually, teaching "these kids" how to read has a lot to do with background knowledge and vocabulary, which comes from knowledge and exposure to history, geography, science, literature, art, music, etc. I have actually taught this type of curriculum to DCPS students in SE, NE and even Upper Northwest. All students benefit from an enriched curriculum. Struggling students make gains in reading while high achieving and gifted students thrive on this type of program. The idea that low-performing students should be put on a strict diet of skill/drill basics while high achieving student should get the good stuff is not only inequitable, but also self-defeating. It simply doesn't work. How do we know? Because that's what we've been doing in DCPS for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:when the child is just smart the urge by some parents to deny gifted/smart children a chance to excel and advance is just sour grapes, imo.. it's akin to eliminating varsity football and insisting on all children being given a spot on the bench...it ignores the fact that learning, just like physical prowess, is very different from child to child leveling the math curriculum will result in youngsters arriving at college unprepared for elementary engineering courses...

That's what advanced placement is for, not magnet schools. By far most "smart" students in high school are not smart in everything, and sports on top of that. Creating magnets for the "smart" and neighborhood schools for the whole rest of them indeed leaves us all worse off. I think that's what another poster meant to point to. It's not even the best solution for the smartest. I teach in a private university (granted not hard sciences so can't speak to that) and I can't tell you how much of an advantage those students have who are used to working with and in the presence of a broad range of capabilities and interests. All this said, there is no way wiping magnets off the map is practical. Reforming incentive structures and bringing schools in line yes, or maybe transforming those magnet schools into charter schools. That's a more realistic and useful approach.

On a separate note, I disagree that anyone who has the means to will inevitably leave DC for schools elsewhere. That statement comes from someone who hasn't looked at the latest Census data, who hasn't followed about 10 years of urban development in DC (and other US cities), and who is oblivious to the continued incline in inner-city home values while the surrounding ones keep dropping. I'm not alone as someone who could more than afford it but just doesn't want to. I love living without a car and love the prospect of my children getting themselves to and from places rather than us adult shuttling them around. I love the opportunities a city brings. I love my neighborhood, my house etc. Magnets/clusters were put in place for a different area in urban development. It's certainly a good time to rethink them but to do so wisely.