DCI or Deal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IB for All (thank you DCI) promotes equity, diversity, and inclusion.

Right, but your kid could always join a diverse Boys and Girls Club, scout troupe, club sports team, multi-ethnic dance troupe etc. to find wonderful equity, diversity and inclusion. At school, you want appropriately calibrated academics first, the rest after in an increasingly globalized and economically competitive world. By the same token, you want your country's military and police forces to provide good security first and laudable equity, diversity and inclusion as a secondary goal.

DCI feeders and DCI itself promotes equity, diversity and inclusion for families who drink the Kool-aid on one-way immersion and detracking through middle school (other than for math and languages). Question the model like a logical parent and see how included you feel.

[Anonymous]

Forget it, your average DCI parent values diversity more than....anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if not Deal or DCI, where are folks gonna go?

We are waitlisted at #1 at a DEAL feeder, but currently attend a school that feeds into MacFarland.

Should we stay put?

Of course not, go. But parents coming up the chain need to seek political support to challenge the idiocy of honors for all well before they get to Wilson, and Deal for that matter.

It’s really too late. 9th and 10th is done, 11th to start next year. Above should have been challenged and advocated against as soon as leadership said it would only be 2 classes. Right. 2 classes then went from 9th grade to 10th and now 11th.

There is no way DCPS is going to reverse the detracking that has started at Wilson. Reality is that DCPS only cares about narrowing the achievement gap even if they have to bring down the top students to do it. Just ask all the UMC EOTP parents trying to get differentiation and tracking. Falls on deaf ears. Response is their kids will be “fine”.

What does this mean? Where is the evidence that this is happening? Seems like a lot of Chicken Littling going on in this thread.

Here is 2 quick scenarios:

A - tracking. All kids performing in the top 10% of the class are in the AP class. Material is challenging but manageable. All peers motivated to do well. Kids rise up to the challenge and teacher can easily raise the bar of difficulty of the course. Kids learn much more and challenged to their full potential.

B - no tracking. Kids 3,4 grade levels apart. Kids at the top bored and easily gets A’s with no effort whatsoever. Teacher can not differentiate effectively with wide academic spread so she focuses on spending much of her time helping the kids at the bottom at least get to grade level.

So kids at the top in group A are learning and being challenged to perform to their full potential. Their knowledge base has increased significantly. Kids at the top in B are stagnant and not learning much at all. There’s the spread and how B is bringing the top kids down from what they potentially could achieve from A..

Lastly, the playing field gets harder and more competitive in college. The top kids in B are going to find college much more challenging and will likely struggle as they compete with kids who are used to being in group A.

As someone growing up poor and was tracked, I can personally say with certainty that I would not be where I am today if I wasn’t with a similar performing peer group that challenged me to my full potential.

I understand the theoretical scenarios. What I asked is whether there is any evidence of actual poor outcomes since Wilson moved to honors for all.

I, too, was tracked in gifted courses through MS and HS, and I like the concept of honors for all. My advanced kids have been well-served by Deal. So I’m interested to see actual evidence that Wilson students are being poorly served by this approach.

FYI, as someone with a science background, the “studies” in the education sector are poor quality and of no value. So when administration quotes this study and that, take it with a grain of salt. No rigorous method, no rigorous control group, no statistical analysis, etc..

You can’t do a good study to evaluate above. You would have to have 2 groups of students (Wilson non-tracking and tracking group) with the same academic abilities being taught the same curriculum by the same teacher. Then measure outcomes of learning by some criteria and do a statistical analysis of it. Not going to happen.

Forgot to add that the variable would be that the teacher could modify the curriculum as needed, i,e raise the difficulty level and that students could not get any help outside of the class.

I’m not looking for a double-blind study. I’m just looking for any data or trends that would justify the level of hysteria in this thread. Test scores, college acceptances, something.

It’s also not clear to me that many people commenting have kids at Wilson and thus are speaking even from anecdotal experience. On that front, the families I know with high-achieving kids at Wilson are happy; in fact, I know multiple families who have chosen Wilson over Walls in the last couple of years.

If you’re “someone with a science background,” I’d think you’d also be looking for something a little more rigorous than the freak out we’re seeing in this thread.

Your definition of “hysteria” and “freak out” is subjective, not objective. I would say many parents on here are voicing their concerns, not freaking out or being hysteric. How ironic that you say you expect something more rigorous when I stated as fact how a rigorous study is done.

As someone mentioned, how do you expect accurate data or trends when you don’t assess those who left for more rigorous programs with those who stay, when you don’t account for parents supplementing extensively? You can talk less rigorous all you want.

So, let me get this straight: year-over-year data on the outcomes of Wilson students—again, test scores, college admissions—couldn’t be used as an indication that honors for all is or isn’t working? Only a double-blind trial will do? And, in the absence of such a trial, let’s err on the side of accepting people’s fears and worries as the likeliest outcome?

Here’s the thing: there are lots of studies showing the problems with tracking. Here’s an article summarizing them: https://tcf.org/content/report/integrating-classrooms-reducing-academic-tracking-strategies-school-leaders-educators/?agreed=1

And here’s a meta-analysis of 15 studies showing that de-tracking reduced the achievement gap without any negative impact on high-achieving students: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1756-5391.2009.01032.x.

Oh, and here’s a study that, while not prospective double-blind, comes as close to it as would seem possible and looks at EXACTLY the tactic Wilson has pursued: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ822225 Spoiler alert: it works! Here’s the abstract:

Background: This longitudinal study examines the long-term effects on the achievement of students at a diverse suburban high school after all students were given accelerated mathematics in a detracked middle school as well as ninth-grade "high-track" curriculum in all subjects in heterogeneously grouped classes. Despite considerable research indicating the ineffectiveness and inequities of ability grouping, the practice is still found in most American high schools. Research indicates that high-track classes bring students an academic benefit while low-track classes are associated with lower subsequent achievement. Corresponding research demonstrates that tracks stratify students by race and class, with African American, Latino and students from low-socioeconomic households being dramatically over-represented in low-track classes and under-represented in high-track classes. Purpose: In light of increasing pressure to hold all students to high learning standards, educators and researchers are examining policy decisions, such as tracking, in order to determine their relationship to student achievement. Design: This study used a quasi-experimental cohort design to compare pre- and post-reform success in the earning of the New York State Regents diploma and the diploma of the International Baccalaureate. Data Analysis: Using binary logistic regression analysis, the authors found that there was a statistically significant post-reform increase in the probability of students earning these standards-based diplomas. Being a member of a detracked cohort was associated with an increase of roughly 70% in the odds of IB diploma attainment and a much greater increase in the odds of Regents diploma attainment--ranging from a three-fold increase for White or Asian students, to a five-fold increase for African American or Latino students who were eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch, to a 26-fold increase for African American or Latino students not eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Further, even as the enrollment in International Baccalaureate classes increased, average scores remained high. Conclusion: The authors conclude that if a detracking reform includes high expectations for all students, sufficient resources and a commitment to the belief that students can achieve when they have access to enriched curriculum, it can be an effective strategy to help students reach high learning standards.

Boy, if people think that the links referenced above (opinion summary piece, a link you can’t access, and last piece which uses a ”quasi-experimental cohort” with no details as to selection, methods, numbers, etc..) proves that de-tracking is the way to go, then all the best to you at Wilson.

[Anonymous]

From ours and many families EOTP experiences that we know, no tracking in the upper elementary is not working with kids many grade levels apart. DCPS is stating teachers can differentiate effectively but they can’t. The pressure on the teachers from DCPS is to bring the bottom kids up to close the achievement gap and that group is where the time and teaching is geared towards

The middle class families are bailing by 2nd, 3rd grade the latest. This is upper elementary. Academic divergence occurs even more as things get even harder in middle and high school. No thanks to de-tracking for us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if not Deal or DCI, where are folks gonna go?

We are waitlisted at #1 at a DEAL feeder, but currently attend a school that feeds into MacFarland.

Should we stay put?

Of course not, go. But parents coming up the chain need to seek political support to challenge the idiocy of honors for all well before they get to Wilson, and Deal for that matter.

It’s really too late. 9th and 10th is done, 11th to start next year. Above should have been challenged and advocated against as soon as leadership said it would only be 2 classes. Right. 2 classes then went from 9th grade to 10th and now 11th.

There is no way DCPS is going to reverse the detracking that has started at Wilson. Reality is that DCPS only cares about narrowing the achievement gap even if they have to bring down the top students to do it. Just ask all the UMC EOTP parents trying to get differentiation and tracking. Falls on deaf ears. Response is their kids will be “fine”.

What does this mean? Where is the evidence that this is happening? Seems like a lot of Chicken Littling going on in this thread.

Here is 2 quick scenarios:

A - tracking. All kids performing in the top 10% of the class are in the AP class. Material is challenging but manageable. All peers motivated to do well. Kids rise up to the challenge and teacher can easily raise the bar of difficulty of the course. Kids learn much more and challenged to their full potential.

B - no tracking. Kids 3,4 grade levels apart. Kids at the top bored and easily gets A’s with no effort whatsoever. Teacher can not differentiate effectively with wide academic spread so she focuses on spending much of her time helping the kids at the bottom at least get to grade level.

So kids at the top in group A are learning and being challenged to perform to their full potential. Their knowledge base has increased significantly. Kids at the top in B are stagnant and not learning much at all. There’s the spread and how B is bringing the top kids down from what they potentially could achieve from A..

Lastly, the playing field gets harder and more competitive in college. The top kids in B are going to find college much more challenging and will likely struggle as they compete with kids who are used to being in group A.

As someone growing up poor and was tracked, I can personally say with certainty that I would not be where I am today if I wasn’t with a similar performing peer group that challenged me to my full potential.

I understand the theoretical scenarios. What I asked is whether there is any evidence of actual poor outcomes since Wilson moved to honors for all.

I, too, was tracked in gifted courses through MS and HS, and I like the concept of honors for all. My advanced kids have been well-served by Deal. So I’m interested to see actual evidence that Wilson students are being poorly served by this approach.

FYI, as someone with a science background, the “studies” in the education sector are poor quality and of no value. So when administration quotes this study and that, take it with a grain of salt. No rigorous method, no rigorous control group, no statistical analysis, etc..

You can’t do a good study to evaluate above. You would have to have 2 groups of students (Wilson non-tracking and tracking group) with the same academic abilities being taught the same curriculum by the same teacher. Then measure outcomes of learning by some criteria and do a statistical analysis of it. Not going to happen.

Forgot to add that the variable would be that the teacher could modify the curriculum as needed, i,e raise the difficulty level and that students could not get any help outside of the class.

I’m not looking for a double-blind study. I’m just looking for any data or trends that would justify the level of hysteria in this thread. Test scores, college acceptances, something.

It’s also not clear to me that many people commenting have kids at Wilson and thus are speaking even from anecdotal experience. On that front, the families I know with high-achieving kids at Wilson are happy; in fact, I know multiple families who have chosen Wilson over Walls in the last couple of years.

If you’re “someone with a science background,” I’d think you’d also be looking for something a little more rigorous than the freak out we’re seeing in this thread.

Your definition of “hysteria” and “freak out” is subjective, not objective. I would say many parents on here are voicing their concerns, not freaking out or being hysteric. How ironic that you say you expect something more rigorous when I stated as fact how a rigorous study is done.

As someone mentioned, how do you expect accurate data or trends when you don’t assess those who left for more rigorous programs with those who stay, when you don’t account for parents supplementing extensively? You can talk less rigorous all you want.

So, let me get this straight: year-over-year data on the outcomes of Wilson students—again, test scores, college admissions—couldn’t be used as an indication that honors for all is or isn’t working? Only a double-blind trial will do? And, in the absence of such a trial, let’s err on the side of accepting people’s fears and worries as the likeliest outcome?

Here’s the thing: there are lots of studies showing the problems with tracking. Here’s an article summarizing them: https://tcf.org/content/report/integrating-classrooms-reducing-academic-tracking-strategies-school-leaders-educators/?agreed=1

And here’s a meta-analysis of 15 studies showing that de-tracking reduced the achievement gap without any negative impact on high-achieving students: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1756-5391.2009.01032.x.

Oh, and here’s a study that, while not prospective double-blind, comes as close to it as would seem possible and looks at EXACTLY the tactic Wilson has pursued: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ822225 Spoiler alert: it works! Here’s the abstract:

Background: This longitudinal study examines the long-term effects on the achievement of students at a diverse suburban high school after all students were given accelerated mathematics in a detracked middle school as well as ninth-grade "high-track" curriculum in all subjects in heterogeneously grouped classes. Despite considerable research indicating the ineffectiveness and inequities of ability grouping, the practice is still found in most American high schools. Research indicates that high-track classes bring students an academic benefit while low-track classes are associated with lower subsequent achievement. Corresponding research demonstrates that tracks stratify students by race and class, with African American, Latino and students from low-socioeconomic households being dramatically over-represented in low-track classes and under-represented in high-track classes. Purpose: In light of increasing pressure to hold all students to high learning standards, educators and researchers are examining policy decisions, such as tracking, in order to determine their relationship to student achievement. Design: This study used a quasi-experimental cohort design to compare pre- and post-reform success in the earning of the New York State Regents diploma and the diploma of the International Baccalaureate. Data Analysis: Using binary logistic regression analysis, the authors found that there was a statistically significant post-reform increase in the probability of students earning these standards-based diplomas. Being a member of a detracked cohort was associated with an increase of roughly 70% in the odds of IB diploma attainment and a much greater increase in the odds of Regents diploma attainment--ranging from a three-fold increase for White or Asian students, to a five-fold increase for African American or Latino students who were eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch, to a 26-fold increase for African American or Latino students not eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Further, even as the enrollment in International Baccalaureate classes increased, average scores remained high. Conclusion: The authors conclude that if a detracking reform includes high expectations for all students, sufficient resources and a commitment to the belief that students can achieve when they have access to enriched curriculum, it can be an effective strategy to help students reach high learning standards.

Boy, if people think that the links referenced above (opinion summary piece, a link you can’t access, and last piece which uses a ”quasi-experimental cohort” with no details as to selection, methods, numbers, etc..) proves that de-tracking is the way to go, then all the best to you at Wilson.

Huh. Seems like you can’t actually debate this on the merits, so you’re reduced to distracting with scare quotes—you might want to Google “quasi-experimental cohort design.”

You are right about one thing—that second link didn’t work. For anyone who is interested, the title is “Four decades of research on the effects of detracking reform: Where do we stand?—A systematic review of the evidence”; it’s available on https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/

Otherwise...I still don’t see any actual evidence that honors for all has had any sort of negative impact on high-achieving kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if not Deal or DCI, where are folks gonna go?

We are waitlisted at #1 at a DEAL feeder, but currently attend a school that feeds into MacFarland.

Should we stay put?

Of course not, go. But parents coming up the chain need to seek political support to challenge the idiocy of honors for all well before they get to Wilson, and Deal for that matter.

It’s really too late. 9th and 10th is done, 11th to start next year. Above should have been challenged and advocated against as soon as leadership said it would only be 2 classes. Right. 2 classes then went from 9th grade to 10th and now 11th.

There is no way DCPS is going to reverse the detracking that has started at Wilson. Reality is that DCPS only cares about narrowing the achievement gap even if they have to bring down the top students to do it. Just ask all the UMC EOTP parents trying to get differentiation and tracking. Falls on deaf ears. Response is their kids will be “fine”.

What does this mean? Where is the evidence that this is happening? Seems like a lot of Chicken Littling going on in this thread.

Here is 2 quick scenarios:

A - tracking. All kids performing in the top 10% of the class are in the AP class. Material is challenging but manageable. All peers motivated to do well. Kids rise up to the challenge and teacher can easily raise the bar of difficulty of the course. Kids learn much more and challenged to their full potential.

B - no tracking. Kids 3,4 grade levels apart. Kids at the top bored and easily gets A’s with no effort whatsoever. Teacher can not differentiate effectively with wide academic spread so she focuses on spending much of her time helping the kids at the bottom at least get to grade level.

So kids at the top in group A are learning and being challenged to perform to their full potential. Their knowledge base has increased significantly. Kids at the top in B are stagnant and not learning much at all. There’s the spread and how B is bringing the top kids down from what they potentially could achieve from A..

Lastly, the playing field gets harder and more competitive in college. The top kids in B are going to find college much more challenging and will likely struggle as they compete with kids who are used to being in group A.

As someone growing up poor and was tracked, I can personally say with certainty that I would not be where I am today if I wasn’t with a similar performing peer group that challenged me to my full potential.

I understand the theoretical scenarios. What I asked is whether there is any evidence of actual poor outcomes since Wilson moved to honors for all.

I, too, was tracked in gifted courses through MS and HS, and I like the concept of honors for all. My advanced kids have been well-served by Deal. So I’m interested to see actual evidence that Wilson students are being poorly served by this approach.

FYI, as someone with a science background, the “studies” in the education sector are poor quality and of no value. So when administration quotes this study and that, take it with a grain of salt. No rigorous method, no rigorous control group, no statistical analysis, etc..

You can’t do a good study to evaluate above. You would have to have 2 groups of students (Wilson non-tracking and tracking group) with the same academic abilities being taught the same curriculum by the same teacher. Then measure outcomes of learning by some criteria and do a statistical analysis of it. Not going to happen.

Forgot to add that the variable would be that the teacher could modify the curriculum as needed, i,e raise the difficulty level and that students could not get any help outside of the class.

I’m not looking for a double-blind study. I’m just looking for any data or trends that would justify the level of hysteria in this thread. Test scores, college acceptances, something.

It’s also not clear to me that many people commenting have kids at Wilson and thus are speaking even from anecdotal experience. On that front, the families I know with high-achieving kids at Wilson are happy; in fact, I know multiple families who have chosen Wilson over Walls in the last couple of years.

If you’re “someone with a science background,” I’d think you’d also be looking for something a little more rigorous than the freak out we’re seeing in this thread.

Your definition of “hysteria” and “freak out” is subjective, not objective. I would say many parents on here are voicing their concerns, not freaking out or being hysteric. How ironic that you say you expect something more rigorous when I stated as fact how a rigorous study is done.

As someone mentioned, how do you expect accurate data or trends when you don’t assess those who left for more rigorous programs with those who stay, when you don’t account for parents supplementing extensively? You can talk less rigorous all you want.

So, let me get this straight: year-over-year data on the outcomes of Wilson students—again, test scores, college admissions—couldn’t be used as an indication that honors for all is or isn’t working? Only a double-blind trial will do? And, in the absence of such a trial, let’s err on the side of accepting people’s fears and worries as the likeliest outcome?

Here’s the thing: there are lots of studies showing the problems with tracking. Here’s an article summarizing them: https://tcf.org/content/report/integrating-classrooms-reducing-academic-tracking-strategies-school-leaders-educators/?agreed=1

And here’s a meta-analysis of 15 studies showing that de-tracking reduced the achievement gap without any negative impact on high-achieving students: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1756-5391.2009.01032.x.

Oh, and here’s a study that, while not prospective double-blind, comes as close to it as would seem possible and looks at EXACTLY the tactic Wilson has pursued: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ822225 Spoiler alert: it works! Here’s the abstract:

Background: This longitudinal study examines the long-term effects on the achievement of students at a diverse suburban high school after all students were given accelerated mathematics in a detracked middle school as well as ninth-grade "high-track" curriculum in all subjects in heterogeneously grouped classes. Despite considerable research indicating the ineffectiveness and inequities of ability grouping, the practice is still found in most American high schools. Research indicates that high-track classes bring students an academic benefit while low-track classes are associated with lower subsequent achievement. Corresponding research demonstrates that tracks stratify students by race and class, with African American, Latino and students from low-socioeconomic households being dramatically over-represented in low-track classes and under-represented in high-track classes. Purpose: In light of increasing pressure to hold all students to high learning standards, educators and researchers are examining policy decisions, such as tracking, in order to determine their relationship to student achievement. Design: This study used a quasi-experimental cohort design to compare pre- and post-reform success in the earning of the New York State Regents diploma and the diploma of the International Baccalaureate. Data Analysis: Using binary logistic regression analysis, the authors found that there was a statistically significant post-reform increase in the probability of students earning these standards-based diplomas. Being a member of a detracked cohort was associated with an increase of roughly 70% in the odds of IB diploma attainment and a much greater increase in the odds of Regents diploma attainment--ranging from a three-fold increase for White or Asian students, to a five-fold increase for African American or Latino students who were eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch, to a 26-fold increase for African American or Latino students not eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Further, even as the enrollment in International Baccalaureate classes increased, average scores remained high. Conclusion: The authors conclude that if a detracking reform includes high expectations for all students, sufficient resources and a commitment to the belief that students can achieve when they have access to enriched curriculum, it can be an effective strategy to help students reach high learning standards.

Boy, if people think that the links referenced above (opinion summary piece, a link you can’t access, and last piece which uses a ”quasi-experimental cohort” with no details as to selection, methods, numbers, etc..) proves that de-tracking is the way to go, then all the best to you at Wilson.

Huh. Seems like you can’t actually debate this on the merits, so you’re reduced to distracting with scare quotes—you might want to Google “quasi-experimental cohort design.”

You are right about one thing—that second link didn’t work. For anyone who is interested, the title is “Four decades of research on the effects of detracking reform: Where do we stand?—A systematic review of the evidence”; it’s available on https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/

Otherwise...I still don’t see any actual evidence that honors for all has had any sort of negative impact on high-achieving kids.

Good luck to you and your child as you wait for “evidence”. The families who really do have high achieving kids who can afford it will go private or move. Others will peel off to Walls which will get even more competitive. Fact. Watch the trend of the kids in the top 10-20% as the grade progresses at Deal then Deal to Wilson and as grade progresses at Wilson. Those that can’t afford private, don’t want to move and don’t get into Walls, who are already supplementing much now will have to step it up even more.

Here is the bottom line people. As someone said earlier, let them eat cake. DCPS response to UMC families is we don’t need to invest in your kids. You can pay for the expensive houses and high property taxes WOTP to us but we won’t re-invest it into your child’s education. Oh and you can pay to supplement your child’s education if their needs are not met too.

We will take the money and renovate under enrolled poor performing high schools EOTP while your kid can’t even find a place to sit at lunch at the most crowded high school in the city. We will take away some AP teachers and now it’s honors for all and hey anyone can take AP classes too so it’s AP for all. It’s all about equity people. Mediocrity for all is the name of the game. You can play or not. We won’t be playing. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

+100. Parents in Upper NW really need to organize to vote out politicians who are fine with mediocrity for all.

[Anonymous]

Is there anyone posting an opinion about honors for all that has a child at Wilson?

My experience as a Deal parent with friends that have kids at Wilson in the honors for all grades is that a LOT of the kids wanted/want to go to Wilson and a LOT of families with high achieving kids are really happy with Wilson. There are a good number of kids that take the Walls test, get an acceptance and then choose Wilson. And everyone knows about honors for all, it is far from hidden.

Our child is starting at Walls in the fall. The competition for Walls may increase (and we have another one that as of now we expect to be competitive for Walls in a few years) but I think parents and students making this choice should really look to find out how the kids are doing. Wilson has some really great programs.

Just food for thought, as there appears to be a lot of opinions of people that do not have any actual experience with the school.

As people upthread noted, the demographics for Wilson are changing as the boundary changes made 5 years ago flow through the system and all the Wilson students are coming out of either Deal or Hardy. I do not think the wide ability disparity everyone is supposing actually exists.

Additionally, I think reliance of PARCC scores can be misleading as only one grade takes the test and the best math students may not take it as they are no longer in the testing classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there anyone posting an opinion about honors for all that has a child at Wilson?

My experience as a Deal parent with friends that have kids at Wilson in the honors for all grades is that a LOT of the kids wanted/want to go to Wilson and a LOT of families with high achieving kids are really happy with Wilson. There are a good number of kids that take the Walls test, get an acceptance and then choose Wilson. And everyone knows about honors for all, it is far from hidden.

Our child is starting at Walls in the fall. The competition for Walls may increase (and we have another one that as of now we expect to be competitive for Walls in a few years) but I think parents and students making this choice should really look to find out how the kids are doing. Wilson has some really great programs.

Just food for thought, as there appears to be a lot of opinions of people that do not have any actual experience with the school.

As people upthread noted, the demographics for Wilson are changing as the boundary changes made 5 years ago flow through the system and all the Wilson students are coming out of either Deal or Hardy. I do not think the wide ability disparity everyone is supposing actually exists.

Additionally, I think reliance of PARCC scores can be misleading as only one grade takes the test and the best math students may not take it as they are no longer in the testing classes.

I agree on all points. I think the Star report cards are more and relevant for high school because PARCC is just one factor (in 3-8 it is a much larger factor with both proficiency and growth taken into account. In HS the star reports include the 10th-grade PARCC but also SAT scores and 4-year graduation rates. Disparities between at-risk and non-at-risk also matter for the above metrics. On the 2018 report card (the first one) Wilson is a 4-star school as is Ellington. Disparities between at-risk and non-at-risk also matter for the above metrics.

For comparison SWW, Banneker, Washington Latin HS, McKinley are 5-star.

BASIS and DCI are 5 and 4-star respectively but the data seems to include both MS and HS.

https://dcschoolreportcard.org/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there anyone posting an opinion about honors for all that has a child at Wilson?

My experience as a Deal parent with friends that have kids at Wilson in the honors for all grades is that a LOT of the kids wanted/want to go to Wilson and a LOT of families with high achieving kids are really happy with Wilson. There are a good number of kids that take the Walls test, get an acceptance and then choose Wilson. And everyone knows about honors for all, it is far from hidden.

Our child is starting at Walls in the fall. The competition for Walls may increase (and we have another one that as of now we expect to be competitive for Walls in a few years) but I think parents and students making this choice should really look to find out how the kids are doing. Wilson has some really great programs.

Just food for thought, as there appears to be a lot of opinions of people that do not have any actual experience with the school.

As people upthread noted, the demographics for Wilson are changing as the boundary changes made 5 years ago flow through the system and all the Wilson students are coming out of either Deal or Hardy. I do not think the wide ability disparity everyone is supposing actually exists.

Additionally, I think reliance of PARCC scores can be misleading as only one grade takes the test and the best math students may not take it as they are no longer in the testing classes.

Love it. My kid is going to Walls but Wilson is great. My other child will likely go to Walls too but Wilson is great.

I want my kid to go to Walls so made them take the Walls test. They want to stay with their friends so are going to Wilson.......(this scenario, as a parent we would be you can still stay in contact with your friends but are going to Walls).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anyone posting an opinion about honors for all that has a child at Wilson?

My experience as a Deal parent with friends that have kids at Wilson in the honors for all grades is that a LOT of the kids wanted/want to go to Wilson and a LOT of families with high achieving kids are really happy with Wilson. There are a good number of kids that take the Walls test, get an acceptance and then choose Wilson. And everyone knows about honors for all, it is far from hidden.

Our child is starting at Walls in the fall. The competition for Walls may increase (and we have another one that as of now we expect to be competitive for Walls in a few years) but I think parents and students making this choice should really look to find out how the kids are doing. Wilson has some really great programs.

Just food for thought, as there appears to be a lot of opinions of people that do not have any actual experience with the school.

As people upthread noted, the demographics for Wilson are changing as the boundary changes made 5 years ago flow through the system and all the Wilson students are coming out of either Deal or Hardy. I do not think the wide ability disparity everyone is supposing actually exists.

Additionally, I think reliance of PARCC scores can be misleading as only one grade takes the test and the best math students may not take it as they are no longer in the testing classes.

I agree on all points. I think the Star report cards are more and relevant for high school because PARCC is just one factor (in 3-8 it is a much larger factor with both proficiency and growth taken into account. In HS the star reports include the 10th-grade PARCC but also SAT scores and 4-year graduation rates. Disparities between at-risk and non-at-risk also matter for the above metrics. On the 2018 report card (the first one) Wilson is a 4-star school as is Ellington. Disparities between at-risk and non-at-risk also matter for the above metrics.

For comparison SWW, Banneker, Washington Latin HS, McKinley are 5-star.

BASIS and DCI are 5 and 4-star respectively but the data seems to include both MS and HS.

https://dcschoolreportcard.org/

You can spin it how you want but in real time in high school, it’s not about SAT scores and graduation rates. We know our child will do fine on the SAT and graduate. It’s about rigor and peer group. That’s tied to competency and PARCC. With only just over 1/2 of the students at grade level in ELA and not even 1/3rd at Math, that’s far from a school with high performing peers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anyone posting an opinion about honors for all that has a child at Wilson?

My experience as a Deal parent with friends that have kids at Wilson in the honors for all grades is that a LOT of the kids wanted/want to go to Wilson and a LOT of families with high achieving kids are really happy with Wilson. There are a good number of kids that take the Walls test, get an acceptance and then choose Wilson. And everyone knows about honors for all, it is far from hidden.

Our child is starting at Walls in the fall. The competition for Walls may increase (and we have another one that as of now we expect to be competitive for Walls in a few years) but I think parents and students making this choice should really look to find out how the kids are doing. Wilson has some really great programs.

Just food for thought, as there appears to be a lot of opinions of people that do not have any actual experience with the school.

As people upthread noted, the demographics for Wilson are changing as the boundary changes made 5 years ago flow through the system and all the Wilson students are coming out of either Deal or Hardy. I do not think the wide ability disparity everyone is supposing actually exists.

Additionally, I think reliance of PARCC scores can be misleading as only one grade takes the test and the best math students may not take it as they are no longer in the testing classes.

I agree on all points. I think the Star report cards are more and relevant for high school because PARCC is just one factor (in 3-8 it is a much larger factor with both proficiency and growth taken into account. In HS the star reports include the 10th-grade PARCC but also SAT scores and 4-year graduation rates. Disparities between at-risk and non-at-risk also matter for the above metrics. On the 2018 report card (the first one) Wilson is a 4-star school as is Ellington. Disparities between at-risk and non-at-risk also matter for the above metrics.

For comparison SWW, Banneker, Washington Latin HS, McKinley are 5-star.

BASIS and DCI are 5 and 4-star respectively but the data seems to include both MS and HS.

https://dcschoolreportcard.org/

You can spin it how you want but in real time in high school, it’s not about SAT scores and graduation rates. We know our child will do fine on the SAT and graduate. It’s about rigor and peer group. That’s tied to competency and PARCC. With only just over 1/2 of the students at grade level in ELA and not even 1/3rd at Math, that’s far from a school with high performing peers.

True and parents tolerated it because at least there was tracking........ Now let’s de-track and mix everybody together.

[Anonymous]

My kid at Wilson is fed up with the uneven quality of teachers. There are a few good teachers, a few horrible ones and many who are mediocre to sub-par. The administration doesn’t seem to care much about anything except talking about honors for all. We regret having picked Wilson. If you spend some time, looking beneath the surface, it is not a pretty picture. Talk to your kids - cheating is widespread.

[Anonymous]

The principal only seems interested in big issues like Honors for All and changing the name of the school. I don’t think she is interested in all the day to day issues which is unfortunate as her admin team seems pretty weak. Phone use in classrooms is a huge problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The principal only seems interested in big issues like Honors for All and changing the name of the school. I don’t think she is interested in all the day to day issues which is unfortunate as her admin team seems pretty weak. Phone use in classrooms is a huge problem.

Phone use in classrooms is a problem at SWW, at least it was through spring 2018. It isn't just a Wilson issue. At DCI students aren't supposed to have phones, but they have do chrome books so have internet and google messaging access during the day.

FWIW at Banneker and McKinley students have to put their phones in a small locker near the school entrance for the day. At BASIS HS students are only allowed to use phones during lunch unless there is an activity where students are using them for research. Not sure how well that is enforced across all classes.