Ludlow-Taylor getting a new a new Principal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure why parents are so obsessed with pull outs. If the teacher is capable of giving children differentiated materials inside the classroom does it matter if the kid is doing appropriately challenging materials in their classroom or down the hall? I swear I think it is a status thing than anything else

Another school in Virginia has a system where they pair two teachers together with a reading specialist, special education teacher or ESOL teacher (depends on the classroom) so that way they have a more robust group of students to group by ability. So if there was only two advanced students in the class they might go across the hall for part of their reading time to work with similarly advanced peers.

You don't have a kid in the upper grades at a Hill public school, do you? Giving children differentiated materials inside the classroom isn't nearly enough for "advanced" kids at diverse schools like Watkins, where students who haven't acquired basic skills in failing DCPS schools lottery into the upper grades. DCPS isn't in the habit of providing the staff support to help teachers differentiate effectively; they definitely don't have a system of pairing teachers together. It's all hit and miss with what a school principal will do for upper grades advanced learners.

If they don't have the staff support then who does the pullouts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure why parents are so obsessed with pull outs. If the teacher is capable of giving children differentiated materials inside the classroom does it matter if the kid is doing appropriately challenging materials in their classroom or down the hall? I swear I think it is a status thing than anything else

Another school in Virginia has a system where they pair two teachers together with a reading specialist, special education teacher or ESOL teacher (depends on the classroom) so that way they have a more robust group of students to group by ability. So if there was only two advanced students in the class they might go across the hall for part of their reading time to work with similarly advanced peers.

You don't have a kid in the upper grades at a Hill public school, do you? Giving children differentiated materials inside the classroom isn't nearly enough for "advanced" kids at diverse schools like Watkins, where students who haven't acquired basic skills in failing DCPS schools lottery into the upper grades. DCPS isn't in the habit of providing the staff support to help teachers differentiate effectively; they definitely don't have a system of pairing teachers together. It's all hit and miss with what a school principal will do for upper grades advanced learners.

I posted this before in the thread about G&T/pull-outs, but here goes: If, based on what you see happening in your own child's actual classroom, you think your kid would be best served by pull-outs, that's one thing.

It's completely different, in my view, to use the idea of G&T/pull-outs as a litmus test for whether or not a principal supports IB/high-SES kids (excuse me, I mean advanced learners).

G&T/pull-outs are one way to manage kids with diverse abilities, but they are not the only way. If a principal says her staff is able to differentiate successfully, and if you have zero evidence to the contrary (because I don't think anyone has posted here claiming their child in the upper grades at LT was not educated appropriately -- the examples of failed differentiation I've seen cited on DCUM seem to be from Watkins or other schools), and if the DC-CAS scores back up the principal's claim, then why do people (many of whose kids are still in ECE!) still keep insisting G&T/pullouts are the only acceptable option?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I posted this before in the thread about G&T/pull-outs, but here goes: If, based on what you see happening in your own child's actual classroom, you think your kid would be best served by pull-outs, that's one thing.

It's completely different, in my view, to use the idea of G&T/pull-outs as a litmus test for whether or not a principal supports IB/high-SES kids (excuse me, I mean advanced learners).

G&T/pull-outs are one way to manage kids with diverse abilities, but they are not the only way. If a principal says her staff is able to differentiate successfully, and if you have zero evidence to the contrary (because I don't think anyone has posted here claiming their child in the upper grades at LT was not educated appropriately -- the examples of failed differentiation I've seen cited on DCUM seem to be from Watkins or other schools), and if the DC-CAS scores back up the principal's claim, then why do people (many of whose kids are still in ECE!) still keep insisting G&T/pullouts are the only acceptable option?

You are asking this in all seriousness when the answer is as plain as day?

If G&T/pull-outs aren't necessary, and advanced ES students can be consistently challenged without them, why do the higher-performing school districts in the DC suburbs bother to committ staff resources to them? The mere existence of G&T and pullouts speaks volumes about the orientation of the school district and school itself. The principal can say whatever she likes without changng the fact that many of our community's best-educated and most dynamic families still vote with their feet for lack of challenge in DC public schools, taking their tax dollars and civic involvement to the burbs. Who benefits?

Go visit Two Rivers, where there are no real pullout groups as a matter of policy, and ask teachers how the K FARMs rate compares to the 5th grade FARMs rate. The school loses two thirds of its middle-class families along the way and has since it was founded. You're calling such attrition zero evidence to the contrary?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I posted this before in the thread about G&T/pull-outs, but here goes: If, based on what you see happening in your own child's actual classroom, you think your kid would be best served by pull-outs, that's one thing.

It's completely different, in my view, to use the idea of G&T/pull-outs as a litmus test for whether or not a principal supports IB/high-SES kids (excuse me, I mean advanced learners).

G&T/pull-outs are one way to manage kids with diverse abilities, but they are not the only way. If a principal says her staff is able to differentiate successfully, and if you have zero evidence to the contrary (because I don't think anyone has posted here claiming their child in the upper grades at LT was not educated appropriately -- the examples of failed differentiation I've seen cited on DCUM seem to be from Watkins or other schools), and if the DC-CAS scores back up the principal's claim, then why do people (many of whose kids are still in ECE!) still keep insisting G&T/pullouts are the only acceptable option?

You are asking this in all seriousness when the answer is as plain as day?

If G&T/pull-outs aren't necessary, and advanced ES students can be consistently challenged without them, why do the higher-performing school districts in the DC suburbs bother to committ staff resources to them? The mere existence of G&T and pullouts speaks volumes about the orientation of the school district and school itself. The principal can say whatever she likes without changng the fact that many of our community's best-educated and most dynamic families still vote with their feet for lack of challenge in DC public schools, taking their tax dollars and civic involvement to the burbs. Who benefits?

Go visit Two Rivers, where there are no real pullout groups as a matter of policy, and ask teachers how the K FARMs rate compares to the 5th grade FARMs rate. The school loses two thirds of its middle-class families along the way and has since it was founded. You're calling such attrition zero evidence to the contrary?

That's evidence affluent parents want them; that's not evidence they're necessary for effective teaching.

[Anonymous]

Here's the funny thing. Everyone thinks their child is G&T until they go out to the burbs, take the test (which BTW, isn't all about how well a kid can multiply or what level they read on), and many find out their kid is just a good student who is maybe above average. The kid then gets dropped into a classroom with 30+ children and since the family now lives in the promised land of MoCo or Fairfax--they shut up because 1) Even though their kid isn't in G&T, socioeconomically the classrooms are homogeneous (the cost of real estate keeps out "the others"), 2) The test scores are great so the kid has to be getting a fabulous education...right? and 3) In the promised land, whatever school you're zoned for is the school you go to, so whether you're happy with it or not, it's your only choice apart from going private.

I have a friend who moved to Fairfax. One kid got into the G&T program (which is very good--make no mistake), and is thriving (but I should note that the kid was thriving in their DCPS as well). The sibling did not get into the G&T program and is unfortunately getting lost. The second kid was actually happier and did much better academically in their small DCPS which only had 17 students in a class.

On a more personal note, when my family lived in another jurisdiction, my oldest was in a G&T pull out program. She loved the G&T program but was bored in the regular classroom. There were 200 kids in her grade (8 classes). Only 12 kids were in her G&T class.

Even if DCPS and Charters were to launch G&T programs here, imagine the weeping and gnashing of teeth when parents find out their kid didn't make the cut.

[Anonymous]

Most schools as small as LT don't have "pull outs" but maybe yall should try that method so we don't have a new generation of asshole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's the funny thing. Everyone thinks their child is G&T until they go out to the burbs, take the test (which BTW, isn't all about how well a kid can multiply or what level they read on), and many find out their kid is just a good student who is maybe above average. The kid then gets dropped into a classroom with 30+ children and since the family now lives in the promised land of MoCo or Fairfax--they shut up because 1) Even though their kid isn't in G&T, socioeconomically the classrooms are homogeneous (the cost of real estate keeps out "the others"), 2) The test scores are great so the kid has to be getting a fabulous education...right? and 3) In the promised land, whatever school you're zoned for is the school you go to, so whether you're happy with it or not, it's your only choice apart from going private.

I have a friend who moved to Fairfax. One kid got into the G&T program (which is very good--make no mistake), and is thriving (but I should note that the kid was thriving in their DCPS as well). The sibling did not get into the G&T program and is unfortunately getting lost. The second kid was actually happier and did much better academically in their small DCPS which only had 17 students in a class.

On a more personal note, when my family lived in another jurisdiction, my oldest was in a G&T pull out program. She loved the G&T program but was bored in the regular classroom. There were 200 kids in her grade (8 classes). Only 12 kids were in her G&T class.

Even if DCPS and Charters were to launch G&T programs here, imagine the weeping and gnashing of teeth when parents find out their kid didn't make the cut.

Bingo!! You nailed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I posted this before in the thread about G&T/pull-outs, but here goes: If, based on what you see happening in your own child's actual classroom, you think your kid would be best served by pull-outs, that's one thing.

It's completely different, in my view, to use the idea of G&T/pull-outs as a litmus test for whether or not a principal supports IB/high-SES kids (excuse me, I mean advanced learners).

G&T/pull-outs are one way to manage kids with diverse abilities, but they are not the only way. If a principal says her staff is able to differentiate successfully, and if you have zero evidence to the contrary (because I don't think anyone has posted here claiming their child in the upper grades at LT was not educated appropriately -- the examples of failed differentiation I've seen cited on DCUM seem to be from Watkins or other schools), and if the DC-CAS scores back up the principal's claim, then why do people (many of whose kids are still in ECE!) still keep insisting G&T/pullouts are the only acceptable option?

You are asking this in all seriousness when the answer is as plain as day?

If G&T/pull-outs aren't necessary, and advanced ES students can be consistently challenged without them, why do the higher-performing school districts in the DC suburbs bother to committ staff resources to them? The mere existence of G&T and pullouts speaks volumes about the orientation of the school district and school itself. The principal can say whatever she likes without changng the fact that many of our community's best-educated and most dynamic families still vote with their feet for lack of challenge in DC public schools, taking their tax dollars and civic involvement to the burbs. Who benefits?

Go visit Two Rivers, where there are no real pullout groups as a matter of policy, and ask teachers how the K FARMs rate compares to the 5th grade FARMs rate. The school loses two thirds of its middle-class families along the way and has since it was founded. You're calling such attrition zero evidence to the contrary?

That's evidence affluent parents want them; that's not evidence they're necessary for effective teaching.

Those same affluent districts have better results than DCPS. Also, shouldn't DCPS try to serve the needs of the families that send their kids to DCPS schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I posted this before in the thread about G&T/pull-outs, but here goes: If, based on what you see happening in your own child's actual classroom, you think your kid would be best served by pull-outs, that's one thing.

It's completely different, in my view, to use the idea of G&T/pull-outs as a litmus test for whether or not a principal supports IB/high-SES kids (excuse me, I mean advanced learners).

G&T/pull-outs are one way to manage kids with diverse abilities, but they are not the only way. If a principal says her staff is able to differentiate successfully, and if you have zero evidence to the contrary (because I don't think anyone has posted here claiming their child in the upper grades at LT was not educated appropriately -- the examples of failed differentiation I've seen cited on DCUM seem to be from Watkins or other schools), and if the DC-CAS scores back up the principal's claim, then why do people (many of whose kids are still in ECE!) still keep insisting G&T/pullouts are the only acceptable option?

You are asking this in all seriousness when the answer is as plain as day?

If G&T/pull-outs aren't necessary, and advanced ES students can be consistently challenged without them, why do the higher-performing school districts in the DC suburbs bother to committ staff resources to them? The mere existence of G&T and pullouts speaks volumes about the orientation of the school district and school itself. The principal can say whatever she likes without changng the fact that many of our community's best-educated and most dynamic families still vote with their feet for lack of challenge in DC public schools, taking their tax dollars and civic involvement to the burbs. Who benefits?

Go visit Two Rivers, where there are no real pullout groups as a matter of policy, and ask teachers how the K FARMs rate compares to the 5th grade FARMs rate. The school loses two thirds of its middle-class families along the way and has since it was founded. You're calling such attrition zero evidence to the contrary?

That's evidence affluent parents want them; that's not evidence they're necessary for effective teaching.

PP, you're evidence that DCPS caters to the bottom and should continue to do so. Let the bottom rule!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I posted this before in the thread about G&T/pull-outs, but here goes: If, based on what you see happening in your own child's actual classroom, you think your kid would be best served by pull-outs, that's one thing.

It's completely different, in my view, to use the idea of G&T/pull-outs as a litmus test for whether or not a principal supports IB/high-SES kids (excuse me, I mean advanced learners).

G&T/pull-outs are one way to manage kids with diverse abilities, but they are not the only way. If a principal says her staff is able to differentiate successfully, and if you have zero evidence to the contrary (because I don't think anyone has posted here claiming their child in the upper grades at LT was not educated appropriately -- the examples of failed differentiation I've seen cited on DCUM seem to be from Watkins or other schools), and if the DC-CAS scores back up the principal's claim, then why do people (many of whose kids are still in ECE!) still keep insisting G&T/pullouts are the only acceptable option?

You are asking this in all seriousness when the answer is as plain as day?

If G&T/pull-outs aren't necessary, and advanced ES students can be consistently challenged without them, why do the higher-performing school districts in the DC suburbs bother to committ staff resources to them? The mere existence of G&T and pullouts speaks volumes about the orientation of the school district and school itself. The principal can say whatever she likes without changng the fact that many of our community's best-educated and most dynamic families still vote with their feet for lack of challenge in DC public schools, taking their tax dollars and civic involvement to the burbs. Who benefits?

Go visit Two Rivers, where there are no real pullout groups as a matter of policy, and ask teachers how the K FARMs rate compares to the 5th grade FARMs rate. The school loses two thirds of its middle-class families along the way and has since it was founded. You're calling such attrition zero evidence to the contrary?

That's evidence affluent parents want them; that's not evidence they're necessary for effective teaching.

Those same affluent districts have better results than DCPS. Also, shouldn't DCPS try to serve the needs of the families that send their kids to DCPS schools?

The G&T programs allow our suburban neighbors to highlight their best and the brightest. Then, everyone points to their G&T programs and the same handful of magnet schools and assert that the suburban districts get "better results." But it's not an apples to apples comparison. You can't even compare our magnet schools to their magnet schools because socioeconomically, DC is completely different and that difference skews the reality of what's happening on the ground and the perception in people's minds.

[Anonymous]

But the Stanton Park neighborhood is not completely different than large swathes of the suburbs. It's become more affluent and expensive for home buyers than much of MoCo and Fairfax.

Test scores in local schools do not belie the reality of our current prosperity.

We need what our friends and colleagues in the burbs have to gain confidence in our public schools: GT, pull-out groups galore, test-in middle schools, serious high school magnets and PSAT/National Merit Scholarship Semifinalists in the double digits (this year, all DC public produced 5 Semifinalists, by my count, fewer than 14 suburban individual high schools in MoCo, Fairfax and Arlington).

Once we start organizing to vote out pols who won't push DCPS and DC Charter to deliver for upper middle-income families, we'll get better results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But the Stanton Park neighborhood is not completely different than large swathes of the suburbs. It's become more affluent and expensive for home buyers than much of MoCo and Fairfax.

Test scores in local schools do not belie the reality of our current prosperity.

We need what our friends and colleagues in the burbs have to gain confidence in our public schools: GT, pull-out groups galore, test-in middle schools, serious high school magnets and PSAT/National Merit Scholarship Semifinalists in the double digits (this year, all DC public produced 5 Semifinalists, by my count, fewer than 14 suburban individual high schools in MoCo, Fairfax and Arlington).

Once we start organizing to vote out pols who won't push DCPS and DC Charter to deliver for upper middle-income families, we'll get better results.

Are you Shi**ing me? Seriously, it is in no way comparable to any suburban neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

The Stanton Park neighborhood is wealthier and the housing is more expensive than many of the VA and MD suburbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I posted this before in the thread about G&T/pull-outs, but here goes: If, based on what you see happening in your own child's actual classroom, you think your kid would be best served by pull-outs, that's one thing.

It's completely different, in my view, to use the idea of G&T/pull-outs as a litmus test for whether or not a principal supports IB/high-SES kids (excuse me, I mean advanced learners).

G&T/pull-outs are one way to manage kids with diverse abilities, but they are not the only way. If a principal says her staff is able to differentiate successfully, and if you have zero evidence to the contrary (because I don't think anyone has posted here claiming their child in the upper grades at LT was not educated appropriately -- the examples of failed differentiation I've seen cited on DCUM seem to be from Watkins or other schools), and if the DC-CAS scores back up the principal's claim, then why do people (many of whose kids are still in ECE!) still keep insisting G&T/pullouts are the only acceptable option?

You are asking this in all seriousness when the answer is as plain as day?

If G&T/pull-outs aren't necessary, and advanced ES students can be consistently challenged without them, why do the higher-performing school districts in the DC suburbs bother to committ staff resources to them? The mere existence of G&T and pullouts speaks volumes about the orientation of the school district and school itself. The principal can say whatever she likes without changng the fact that many of our community's best-educated and most dynamic families still vote with their feet for lack of challenge in DC public schools, taking their tax dollars and civic involvement to the burbs. Who benefits?

Go visit Two Rivers, where there are no real pullout groups as a matter of policy, and ask teachers how the K FARMs rate compares to the 5th grade FARMs rate. The school loses two thirds of its middle-class families along the way and has since it was founded. You're calling such attrition zero evidence to the contrary?

That's evidence affluent parents want them; that's not evidence they're necessary for effective teaching.

Those same affluent districts have better results than DCPS. Also, shouldn't DCPS try to serve the needs of the families that send their kids to DCPS schools?

The G&T programs allow our suburban neighbors to highlight their best and the brightest. Then, everyone points to their G&T programs and the same handful of magnet schools and assert that the suburban districts get "better results." But it's not an apples to apples comparison. You can't even compare our magnet schools to their magnet schools because socioeconomically, DC is completely different and that difference skews the reality of what's happening on the ground and the perception in people's minds.

I don't think less than 50% of kids in the suburbs are at the 16th percentile on the SAT or higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But the Stanton Park neighborhood is not completely different than large swathes of the suburbs. It's become more affluent and expensive for home buyers than much of MoCo and Fairfax.

Test scores in local schools do not belie the reality of our current prosperity.

We need what our friends and colleagues in the burbs have to gain confidence in our public schools: GT, pull-out groups galore, test-in middle schools, serious high school magnets and PSAT/National Merit Scholarship Semifinalists in the double digits (this year, all DC public produced 5 Semifinalists, by my count, fewer than 14 suburban individual high schools in MoCo, Fairfax and Arlington).

Once we start organizing to vote out pols who won't push DCPS and DC Charter to deliver for upper middle-income families, we'll get better results.

Are the PSAT/National Merit Scholars Semifinalist in the suburbs a reflection of school quality or the amount of money parents in those communities spend on outside tutoring and test preparation? It is reasonable to conclude that in more affluent communities there will be more PSAT/NMSQT than in lower SES communities around the nation.