Grosso comes out against a stand alone middle school for Shaw

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can’t see DCPS opening a new MS at Bannker when Banneker HS moves out in two years. Absent enrollment pressure and with DCPS budgets getting tighter, they will mothball it.

Agree with this. NOthing to be done if the new mayor doesn't give a darn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well it’s true that if the neighbors ended up looking like they were too good for a school that already existed in their neighborhood. That leaves you guys open to stuff like this Grosso quote.

Every child is too good for Cardozo Middle. That is why it has the lowest capture rate in the city. And as long as DCPS, the Mayor, and most of the Council continue to treat it like crap, it's going to stay that way.

Are Banneker families "too good" for their IB high schools?

No, come on here. I'm not sure if this PP is a troll or a serious poster, but either way: leave Banneker alone. It's a great school. The kids and parents there get to advocate for what they need, because they've earned it.

And I'm a Shaw parent and Save Shaw advocate.

The problem here is divisive rhetoric, most notably from Bowser.
The council gave Shaw to Banneker. Good for Banneker. Now, let's figure out what to do with Shaw middle schoolers and how to find THEM a great experience too.

How exactly did they "earn" it? Have Cardozo kids done something wrong and failed to "earn" an adequate school? Is it because their rotating cast of APs sucks? Or because they are high-ELL? Sorry but I reject this "earning" concept entirely. All kids deserve to have their needs met.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well it’s true that if the neighbors ended up looking like they were too good for a school that already existed in their neighborhood. That leaves you guys open to stuff like this Grosso quote.

Every child is too good for Cardozo Middle. That is why it has the lowest capture rate in the city. And as long as DCPS, the Mayor, and most of the Council continue to treat it like crap, it's going to stay that way.

Are Banneker families "too good" for their IB high schools?

No, come on here. I'm not sure if this PP is a troll or a serious poster, but either way: leave Banneker alone. It's a great school. The kids and parents there get to advocate for what they need, because they've earned it.

And I'm a Shaw parent and Save Shaw advocate.

The problem here is divisive rhetoric, most notably from Bowser.
The council gave Shaw to Banneker. Good for Banneker. Now, let's figure out what to do with Shaw middle schoolers and how to find THEM a great experience too.

How exactly did they "earn" it? Have Cardozo kids done something wrong and failed to "earn" an adequate school? Is it because their rotating cast of APs sucks? Or because they are high-ELL? Sorry but I reject this "earning" concept entirely. All kids deserve to have their needs met.

+1. Getting to advocate is not something to be "earned"! Everyone has the right to advocate! Wtf. I just want Banneker to stop being so snide and nasty to Cardozo. And to acknowledge that Banneker is a primarily middle income school that excludes special needs students and its "success" is in part the product of its demographics and admissions.

[Anonymous]

I think all sides are being nasty and mean and condescending to Cardozo.

There are no angels here. But I give Banneker students a bigger pass, because they are younger and inexperienced, than the Save Shaw parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the Grosso quote. Why really does the neighborhood get to say "NAH" to Cardozo?

Now just to muddle the message I would say this: I don't want a 6-12 campus for my kids. It's about high schoolers mixing with middle schoolers and the problems that adolescents have with each other. That doesn't seem like it was much of the discussion. My neighborhood schools are adjacent - Roosevelt and MacFarland - but the separation is good enough for me. Cardozo should be able to show at least as much ability to keep the grade echelons separate if they want parents to get excited about their 11 year olds going there.

In same building -- Coolidge/Wells, McKinley Tech/McKinley Middle -- probably others.

Do you know that Cardozo doesn't keep then separate physically? A separately principal could help (Coolidge/Wells have that). McKinley shares.

Cardozo has a lot of issues with keeping the grades separated. Wells and Coolidge aren’t sharing a building, just some space.

I wouldn’t want my 12 year old sharing space with an 18 year old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well it’s true that if the neighbors ended up looking like they were too good for a school that already existed in their neighborhood. That leaves you guys open to stuff like this Grosso quote.

Every child is too good for Cardozo Middle. That is why it has the lowest capture rate in the city. And as long as DCPS, the Mayor, and most of the Council continue to treat it like crap, it's going to stay that way.

Are Banneker families "too good" for their IB high schools?

No, come on here. I'm not sure if this PP is a troll or a serious poster, but either way: leave Banneker alone. It's a great school. The kids and parents there get to advocate for what they need, because they've earned it.

And I'm a Shaw parent and Save Shaw advocate.

The problem here is divisive rhetoric, most notably from Bowser.
The council gave Shaw to Banneker. Good for Banneker. Now, let's figure out what to do with Shaw middle schoolers and how to find THEM a great experience too.

How exactly did they "earn" it? Have Cardozo kids done something wrong and failed to "earn" an adequate school? Is it because their rotating cast of APs sucks? Or because they are high-ELL? Sorry but I reject this "earning" concept entirely. All kids deserve to have their needs met.

+1. Getting to advocate is not something to be "earned"! Everyone has the right to advocate! Wtf. I just want Banneker to stop being so snide and nasty to Cardozo. And to acknowledge that Banneker is a primarily middle income school that excludes special needs students and its "success" is in part the product of its demographics and admissions.

+2.

Another part of that "success" is getting rid of half of all incoming boys before they reach senior year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think all sides are being nasty and mean and condescending to Cardozo.

There are no angels here. But I give Banneker students a bigger pass, because they are younger and inexperienced, than the Save Shaw parents.

How about the Banneker parents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think all sides are being nasty and mean and condescending to Cardozo.

There are no angels here. But I give Banneker students a bigger pass, because they are younger and inexperienced, than the Save Shaw parents.

A Banneker student stood up at a public and said they were brought down to the cafeteria and told to fight gentrification. No one associated with the Banneker community gets on a pass on anything. One thing has become perfectly clear through all this is the toxic culture at Banneker, led first by parents, teachers and adminstrators and trickled through to students.

[Anonymous]

Calling out DCPS's neglect of Cardozo is not mistreating Cardozo or being condescending. It is advocating FOR Cardozo and its families. Cardozo Middle is tiny and has a high percentage of ELLs, so it's hard for it to advocate for itself. Feeder elementary parents are stakeholders and can claim a seat at the table. This has involved some hard conversations about the mistreatment of the middle school by downtown and by the Cardozo principal herself. But speaking up about it is the right thing to do.

[Anonymous]

For those who are suddenly taking on the fight of SN students ...

My kid with an IEP wanted to go to SWW. Scored high on the exam (we sought and got scores), had great grades. Was inexplicably cut after interview.

We sought advice from a well know attorney who has successfully fought DCPS for years. He said we had no case. No student has a right to a specialized program. Because DCPS would serve my kid in our neighborhood school they can make exclusions, even under IDEA.

I hope Patterson gets somewhere with this. Back when we applied the principal clearly said that students with IEPs or 504s were expected to ‘keep up.’ Well, duh. And there is no reason that many kids with IEPs can’t.

It isn’t a clear cut matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those who are suddenly taking on the fight of SN students ...

My kid with an IEP wanted to go to SWW. Scored high on the exam (we sought and got scores), had great grades. Was inexplicably cut after interview.

We sought advice from a well know attorney who has successfully fought DCPS for years. He said we had no case. No student has a right to a specialized program. Because DCPS would serve my kid in our neighborhood school they can make exclusions, even under IDEA.

I hope Patterson gets somewhere with this. Back when we applied the principal clearly said that students with IEPs or 504s were expected to ‘keep up.’ Well, duh. And there is no reason that many kids with IEPs can’t.

It isn’t a clear cut matter.

Still, the fact remains that excluding students with IEPs is one reason Banneker's test scores look good. Why that should "earn" them anything is a mystery. It isn't something to be proud of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who are suddenly taking on the fight of SN students ...

My kid with an IEP wanted to go to SWW. Scored high on the exam (we sought and got scores), had great grades. Was inexplicably cut after interview.

We sought advice from a well know attorney who has successfully fought DCPS for years. He said we had no case. No student has a right to a specialized program. Because DCPS would serve my kid in our neighborhood school they can make exclusions, even under IDEA.

I hope Patterson gets somewhere with this. Back when we applied the principal clearly said that students with IEPs or 504s were expected to ‘keep up.’ Well, duh. And there is no reason that many kids with IEPs can’t.

It isn’t a clear cut matter.

Still, the fact remains that excluding students with IEPs is one reason Banneker's test scores look good. Why that should "earn" them anything is a mystery. It isn't something to be proud of.

1) You cannot assume that students with IEP applying to an application school, and meet all of the academic criteria for admission, would bring down the test scores at all. SN is not a synonym for low academic achievement.

2) None of the application schools have large percentages of students with IEPs.

3) None of the application schools are supposed to know whether a student has disabilities or not when applying. They certainly don't for students applying from outside DCPS. That is the part that is worth exploring -- are they somehow accessing that data inappropriately (that's why I'd kill the interviews and base admissions on test scores and teacher recs only).

4) ALL the application schools have significant attrition from one grade to the next. The size of the 9th-grade classes and then the size of that class when they graduate is quite smaller (except if they admit a significant number at 10th, in which case the drop out/counsel out rate is hidden).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who are suddenly taking on the fight of SN students ...

My kid with an IEP wanted to go to SWW. Scored high on the exam (we sought and got scores), had great grades. Was inexplicably cut after interview.

We sought advice from a well know attorney who has successfully fought DCPS for years. He said we had no case. No student has a right to a specialized program. Because DCPS would serve my kid in our neighborhood school they can make exclusions, even under IDEA.

I hope Patterson gets somewhere with this. Back when we applied the principal clearly said that students with IEPs or 504s were expected to ‘keep up.’ Well, duh. And there is no reason that many kids with IEPs can’t.

It isn’t a clear cut matter.

Still, the fact remains that excluding students with IEPs is one reason Banneker's test scores look good. Why that should "earn" them anything is a mystery. It isn't something to be proud of.

1) You cannot assume that students with IEP applying to an application school, and meet all of the academic criteria for admission, would bring down the test scores at all. SN is not a synonym for low academic achievement.

2) None of the application schools have large percentages of students with IEPs.

3) None of the application schools are supposed to know whether a student has disabilities or not when applying. They certainly don't for students applying from outside DCPS. That is the part that is worth exploring -- are they somehow accessing that data inappropriately (that's why I'd kill the interviews and base admissions on test scores and teacher recs only).

4) ALL the application schools have significant attrition from one grade to the next. The size of the 9th-grade classes and then the size of that class when they graduate is quite smaller (except if they admit a significant number at 10th, in which case the drop out/counsel out rate is hidden).

Excluding students with IEPs reduces work for the administration and teachers and makes it easier to operate the school. Not something to be proud of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who are suddenly taking on the fight of SN students ...

My kid with an IEP wanted to go to SWW. Scored high on the exam (we sought and got scores), had great grades. Was inexplicably cut after interview.

We sought advice from a well know attorney who has successfully fought DCPS for years. He said we had no case. No student has a right to a specialized program. Because DCPS would serve my kid in our neighborhood school they can make exclusions, even under IDEA.

I hope Patterson gets somewhere with this. Back when we applied the principal clearly said that students with IEPs or 504s were expected to ‘keep up.’ Well, duh. And there is no reason that many kids with IEPs can’t.

It isn’t a clear cut matter.

Still, the fact remains that excluding students with IEPs is one reason Banneker's test scores look good. Why that should "earn" them anything is a mystery. It isn't something to be proud of.

1) You cannot assume that students with IEP applying to an application school, and meet all of the academic criteria for admission, would bring down the test scores at all. SN is not a synonym for low academic achievement.

2) None of the application schools have large percentages of students with IEPs.

3) None of the application schools are supposed to know whether a student has disabilities or not when applying. They certainly don't for students applying from outside DCPS. That is the part that is worth exploring -- are they somehow accessing that data inappropriately (that's why I'd kill the interviews and base admissions on test scores and teacher recs only).

4) ALL the application schools have significant attrition from one grade to the next. The size of the 9th-grade classes and then the size of that class when they graduate is quite smaller (except if they admit a significant number at 10th, in which case the drop out/counsel out rate is hidden).

Excluding students with IEPs reduces work for the administration and teachers and makes it easier to operate the school. Not something to be proud of.

What I really would love to know is the percentage of students with 504s at application schools vs the rest of the high schools. Unfortunately, since it isn't covered by IDEA it isn't reported publicly. By high school, a student with a disability who can meet the academic bar is typically no longer qualified for an IEP, but rather has a 504 for accommodations only.

Implementing a 504 is also considered a 'hassle' for many teachers and admins. These schools do it which is obvious when it comes to administering the PSAT/SAT tests at school and seeking/implementing accommodations for students with disabilities.

[Anonymous]

IT isn't surprising that Grosso made this point in the WPost article. It's completely consistent with what he said at every budget hearing.

It is also consistent with what he has said in the past regarding Capital Hill middle schools. Made the same comment about Brent parents in particular not being willing to attend Jefferson a couple years back.