Article on Maury/Miner merger proposal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they really wanted to try something like this, I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to start with two schools that are closer together in terms of at-risk population (DME’s stated concern) or test scores (correlated but obviously not the same).

People who bought within the Maury boundary paid a premium to do so because of the school. That’s not to say they are entitled to go there — boundaries change sometimes, etc — but just to say that these are people for whom going to a school with a certain cohort of on-grade level or advanced learners was important enough to pay a lot more money than they would have if they had bought a couple of blocks over. They are not going to “come quietly” if you are all of a sudden going to organize things in a way that will put their kids in classrooms that are now 50% below grade level.

If you start by evening out two schools closer together on those measures, you are likely to get less vociferous opposition, because the changes will be less dramatic, and in the process of doing it are likely to learn more about how to make this model both more effective academically and more attractive to families (important for retaining the more invested families/higher performing kids you are trying to spread around).

Or if there was more trust that all kids are going to get the level of instruction they need, instead of pretending it is wrong to want your kid to get that. And of course the current fad for disregarding, you know, actual teaching and learning methods, is much worse for poor kids than rich kids. If instruction at Maury hadn’t been so haphazard already it might have been an easier ask.

This for sure. Even now at Maury, several teachers have told me how difficult it is to effectively teach the range of children they are presented with in each class. Broadening the range — or weighting it further in one direction — would only make it that much harder to provide the needed education to each student there. If a school offers tracking, and you can be confident your kid will be taught content at their level with a cohort around the same level, you can fill the school however you want.

But you kind of miss my point. The teaching methods are horrible now, no matter the track. all computers, no homework, no drilling, no tests to study for, no books, no consistently corrected papers. No independent research. It’s bad for our privileged kids and even worse for unprivileged kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they really wanted to try something like this, I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to start with two schools that are closer together in terms of at-risk population (DME’s stated concern) or test scores (correlated but obviously not the same).

People who bought within the Maury boundary paid a premium to do so because of the school. That’s not to say they are entitled to go there — boundaries change sometimes, etc — but just to say that these are people for whom going to a school with a certain cohort of on-grade level or advanced learners was important enough to pay a lot more money than they would have if they had bought a couple of blocks over. They are not going to “come quietly” if you are all of a sudden going to organize things in a way that will put their kids in classrooms that are now 50% below grade level.

If you start by evening out two schools closer together on those measures, you are likely to get less vociferous opposition, because the changes will be less dramatic, and in the process of doing it are likely to learn more about how to make this model both more effective academically and more attractive to families (important for retaining the more invested families/higher performing kids you are trying to spread around).

Or if there was more trust that all kids are going to get the level of instruction they need, instead of pretending it is wrong to want your kid to get that. And of course the current fad for disregarding, you know, actual teaching and learning methods, is much worse for poor kids than rich kids. If instruction at Maury hadn’t been so haphazard already it might have been an easier ask.

This for sure. Even now at Maury, several teachers have told me how difficult it is to effectively teach the range of children they are presented with in each class. Broadening the range — or weighting it further in one direction — would only make it that much harder to provide the needed education to each student there. If a school offers tracking, and you can be confident your kid will be taught content at their level with a cohort around the same level, you can fill the school however you want.

But you kind of miss my point. The teaching methods are horrible now, no matter the track. all computers, no homework, no drilling, no tests to study for, no books, no consistently corrected papers. No independent research. It’s bad for our privileged kids and even worse for unprivileged kids.

What school are you at? I have to give kids HW and teach PK4…
The upper grades only use the computer for iReady or exams. We also have physical books…
Also the drill and kill method has proven to be subpar at least a decade ago.
Kids also do projects and as far as testing it’s frequent because iReady tests, paper tests are kept to a minimum to avoid going even more overboard, teaching to test is something people try to reserve for CAPE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ We try not to engage in that kind of promise making, because we have no idea,” he said. “It’s not clear what the benefits are for a model that hasn’t yet been developed, apart from the fundamental motivation, which is, kids are going to do better both academically and socially” in more diverse schools.”

Maury is MUCH more diverse than any of the schools that the elites of the mayor’s team and the ed policy journos likely send their kids.

Hate to break it to you, but reporters and civil servants aren’t exactly raking it in financially. These people hardly qualify as elites and probably can’t afford to live in the Maury boundary much less Ward 3.

Paul Kihn is a former McKinsey employee and his kids go to private school.

They don’t go to private school, one of them was in my daughter’s class at our non-WOTP school last year. Stop spreading lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ We try not to engage in that kind of promise making, because we have no idea,” he said. “It’s not clear what the benefits are for a model that hasn’t yet been developed, apart from the fundamental motivation, which is, kids are going to do better both academically and socially” in more diverse schools.”

Maury is MUCH more diverse than any of the schools that the elites of the mayor’s team and the ed policy journos likely send their kids.

Hate to break it to you, but reporters and civil servants aren’t exactly raking it in financially. These people hardly qualify as elites and probably can’t afford to live in the Maury boundary much less Ward 3.

Paul Kihn is a former McKinsey employee and his kids go to private school.

They don’t go to private school, one of them was in my daughter’s class at our non-WOTP school last year. Stop spreading lies.

Great to hear he's making different choices since the fact that he sends to kids to private school was covered in the Washington Post and elsewhere. If he wants to correct the significant record on this, he's free to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they really wanted to try something like this, I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to start with two schools that are closer together in terms of at-risk population (DME’s stated concern) or test scores (correlated but obviously not the same).

People who bought within the Maury boundary paid a premium to do so because of the school. That’s not to say they are entitled to go there — boundaries change sometimes, etc — but just to say that these are people for whom going to a school with a certain cohort of on-grade level or advanced learners was important enough to pay a lot more money than they would have if they had bought a couple of blocks over. They are not going to “come quietly” if you are all of a sudden going to organize things in a way that will put their kids in classrooms that are now 50% below grade level.

If you start by evening out two schools closer together on those measures, you are likely to get less vociferous opposition, because the changes will be less dramatic, and in the process of doing it are likely to learn more about how to make this model both more effective academically and more attractive to families (important for retaining the more invested families/higher performing kids you are trying to spread around).

Or if there was more trust that all kids are going to get the level of instruction they need, instead of pretending it is wrong to want your kid to get that. And of course the current fad for disregarding, you know, actual teaching and learning methods, is much worse for poor kids than rich kids. If instruction at Maury hadn’t been so haphazard already it might have been an easier ask.

This for sure. Even now at Maury, several teachers have told me how difficult it is to effectively teach the range of children they are presented with in each class. Broadening the range — or weighting it further in one direction — would only make it that much harder to provide the needed education to each student there. If a school offers tracking, and you can be confident your kid will be taught content at their level with a cohort around the same level, you can fill the school however you want.

But you kind of miss my point. The teaching methods are horrible now, no matter the track. all computers, no homework, no drilling, no tests to study for, no books, no consistently corrected papers. No independent research. It’s bad for our privileged kids and even worse for unprivileged kids.

What school are you at? I have to give kids HW and teach PK4…
The upper grades only use the computer for iReady or exams. We also have physical books…
Also the drill and kill method has proven to be subpar at least a decade ago.
Kids also do projects and as far as testing it’s frequent because iReady tests, paper tests are kept to a minimum to avoid going even more overboard, teaching to test is something people try to reserve for CAPE.

You literally just listed at least 5 things in there that reinforce what I am saying about instructions. (and no, there are not text books.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they really wanted to try something like this, I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to start with two schools that are closer together in terms of at-risk population (DME’s stated concern) or test scores (correlated but obviously not the same).

People who bought within the Maury boundary paid a premium to do so because of the school. That’s not to say they are entitled to go there — boundaries change sometimes, etc — but just to say that these are people for whom going to a school with a certain cohort of on-grade level or advanced learners was important enough to pay a lot more money than they would have if they had bought a couple of blocks over. They are not going to “come quietly” if you are all of a sudden going to organize things in a way that will put their kids in classrooms that are now 50% below grade level.

If you start by evening out two schools closer together on those measures, you are likely to get less vociferous opposition, because the changes will be less dramatic, and in the process of doing it are likely to learn more about how to make this model both more effective academically and more attractive to families (important for retaining the more invested families/higher performing kids you are trying to spread around).

Or if there was more trust that all kids are going to get the level of instruction they need, instead of pretending it is wrong to want your kid to get that. And of course the current fad for disregarding, you know, actual teaching and learning methods, is much worse for poor kids than rich kids. If instruction at Maury hadn’t been so haphazard already it might have been an easier ask.

This for sure. Even now at Maury, several teachers have told me how difficult it is to effectively teach the range of children they are presented with in each class. Broadening the range — or weighting it further in one direction — would only make it that much harder to provide the needed education to each student there. If a school offers tracking, and you can be confident your kid will be taught content at their level with a cohort around the same level, you can fill the school however you want.

But you kind of miss my point. The teaching methods are horrible now, no matter the track. all computers, no homework, no drilling, no tests to study for, no books, no consistently corrected papers. No independent research. It’s bad for our privileged kids and even worse for unprivileged kids.

What school are you at? I have to give kids HW and teach PK4…
The upper grades only use the computer for iReady or exams. We also have physical books…
Also the drill and kill method has proven to be subpar at least a decade ago.
Kids also do projects and as far as testing it’s frequent because iReady tests, paper tests are kept to a minimum to avoid going even more overboard, teaching to test is something people try to reserve for CAPE.

You literally just listed at least 5 things in there that reinforce what I am saying about instructions. (and no, there are not text books.)

I surely did not, paper tests aren’t a form of teaching and again drill and kill isn’t learning. And maybe at your school there’s no physical books, my school has them.
Either way education does need a little less tech, this will only happen if we cut class sizes in half or the lower grades Pk-1 get 2 aides and the upper grades get 1.
Both are unlikely to happen unless parents want to advocate too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they really wanted to try something like this, I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to start with two schools that are closer together in terms of at-risk population (DME’s stated concern) or test scores (correlated but obviously not the same).

People who bought within the Maury boundary paid a premium to do so because of the school. That’s not to say they are entitled to go there — boundaries change sometimes, etc — but just to say that these are people for whom going to a school with a certain cohort of on-grade level or advanced learners was important enough to pay a lot more money than they would have if they had bought a couple of blocks over. They are not going to “come quietly” if you are all of a sudden going to organize things in a way that will put their kids in classrooms that are now 50% below grade level.

If you start by evening out two schools closer together on those measures, you are likely to get less vociferous opposition, because the changes will be less dramatic, and in the process of doing it are likely to learn more about how to make this model both more effective academically and more attractive to families (important for retaining the more invested families/higher performing kids you are trying to spread around).

Or if there was more trust that all kids are going to get the level of instruction they need, instead of pretending it is wrong to want your kid to get that. And of course the current fad for disregarding, you know, actual teaching and learning methods, is much worse for poor kids than rich kids. If instruction at Maury hadn’t been so haphazard already it might have been an easier ask.

This for sure. Even now at Maury, several teachers have told me how difficult it is to effectively teach the range of children they are presented with in each class. Broadening the range — or weighting it further in one direction — would only make it that much harder to provide the needed education to each student there. If a school offers tracking, and you can be confident your kid will be taught content at their level with a cohort around the same level, you can fill the school however you want.

But you kind of miss my point. The teaching methods are horrible now, no matter the track. all computers, no homework, no drilling, no tests to study for, no books, no consistently corrected papers. No independent research. It’s bad for our privileged kids and even worse for unprivileged kids.

What school are you at? I have to give kids HW and teach PK4…
The upper grades only use the computer for iReady or exams. We also have physical books…
Also the drill and kill method has proven to be subpar at least a decade ago.
Kids also do projects and as far as testing it’s frequent because iReady tests, paper tests are kept to a minimum to avoid going even more overboard, teaching to test is something people try to reserve for CAPE.

You literally just listed at least 5 things in there that reinforce what I am saying about instructions. (and no, there are not text books.)

In fairness growing up I did not have text books until middle school at the earliest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they really wanted to try something like this, I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to start with two schools that are closer together in terms of at-risk population (DME’s stated concern) or test scores (correlated but obviously not the same).

People who bought within the Maury boundary paid a premium to do so because of the school. That’s not to say they are entitled to go there — boundaries change sometimes, etc — but just to say that these are people for whom going to a school with a certain cohort of on-grade level or advanced learners was important enough to pay a lot more money than they would have if they had bought a couple of blocks over. They are not going to “come quietly” if you are all of a sudden going to organize things in a way that will put their kids in classrooms that are now 50% below grade level.

If you start by evening out two schools closer together on those measures, you are likely to get less vociferous opposition, because the changes will be less dramatic, and in the process of doing it are likely to learn more about how to make this model both more effective academically and more attractive to families (important for retaining the more invested families/higher performing kids you are trying to spread around).

Or if there was more trust that all kids are going to get the level of instruction they need, instead of pretending it is wrong to want your kid to get that. And of course the current fad for disregarding, you know, actual teaching and learning methods, is much worse for poor kids than rich kids. If instruction at Maury hadn’t been so haphazard already it might have been an easier ask.

This for sure. Even now at Maury, several teachers have told me how difficult it is to effectively teach the range of children they are presented with in each class. Broadening the range — or weighting it further in one direction — would only make it that much harder to provide the needed education to each student there. If a school offers tracking, and you can be confident your kid will be taught content at their level with a cohort around the same level, you can fill the school however you want.

But you kind of miss my point. The teaching methods are horrible now, no matter the track. all computers, no homework, no drilling, no tests to study for, no books, no consistently corrected papers. No independent research. It’s bad for our privileged kids and even worse for unprivileged kids.

What school are you at? I have to give kids HW and teach PK4…
The upper grades only use the computer for iReady or exams. We also have physical books…
Also the drill and kill method has proven to be subpar at least a decade ago.
Kids also do projects and as far as testing it’s frequent because iReady tests, paper tests are kept to a minimum to avoid going even more overboard, teaching to test is something people try to reserve for CAPE.

You literally just listed at least 5 things in there that reinforce what I am saying about instructions. (and no, there are not text books.)

I surely did not, paper tests aren’t a form of teaching and again drill and kill isn’t learning. And maybe at your school there’s no physical books, my school has them.
Either way education does need a little less tech, this will only happen if we cut class sizes in half or the lower grades Pk-1 get 2 aides and the upper grades get 1.
Both are unlikely to happen unless parents want to advocate too?

Drill and kill is the way kids in fact learn, especially math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they really wanted to try something like this, I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to start with two schools that are closer together in terms of at-risk population (DME’s stated concern) or test scores (correlated but obviously not the same).

People who bought within the Maury boundary paid a premium to do so because of the school. That’s not to say they are entitled to go there — boundaries change sometimes, etc — but just to say that these are people for whom going to a school with a certain cohort of on-grade level or advanced learners was important enough to pay a lot more money than they would have if they had bought a couple of blocks over. They are not going to “come quietly” if you are all of a sudden going to organize things in a way that will put their kids in classrooms that are now 50% below grade level.

If you start by evening out two schools closer together on those measures, you are likely to get less vociferous opposition, because the changes will be less dramatic, and in the process of doing it are likely to learn more about how to make this model both more effective academically and more attractive to families (important for retaining the more invested families/higher performing kids you are trying to spread around).

Or if there was more trust that all kids are going to get the level of instruction they need, instead of pretending it is wrong to want your kid to get that. And of course the current fad for disregarding, you know, actual teaching and learning methods, is much worse for poor kids than rich kids. If instruction at Maury hadn’t been so haphazard already it might have been an easier ask.

This for sure. Even now at Maury, several teachers have told me how difficult it is to effectively teach the range of children they are presented with in each class. Broadening the range — or weighting it further in one direction — would only make it that much harder to provide the needed education to each student there. If a school offers tracking, and you can be confident your kid will be taught content at their level with a cohort around the same level, you can fill the school however you want.

But you kind of miss my point. The teaching methods are horrible now, no matter the track. all computers, no homework, no drilling, no tests to study for, no books, no consistently corrected papers. No independent research. It’s bad for our privileged kids and even worse for unprivileged kids.

What school are you at? I have to give kids HW and teach PK4…
The upper grades only use the computer for iReady or exams. We also have physical books…
Also the drill and kill method has proven to be subpar at least a decade ago.
Kids also do projects and as far as testing it’s frequent because iReady tests, paper tests are kept to a minimum to avoid going even more overboard, teaching to test is something people try to reserve for CAPE.

You literally just listed at least 5 things in there that reinforce what I am saying about instructions. (and no, there are not text books.)

In fairness growing up I did not have text books until middle school at the earliest.

I can’t remember when I got text books, but the work was definitely paper based and went back home to my parents. Unlike everything being done on the computers.

Maury had an absolutely fabulous curriculum and teaching staff for K and 1st - literacy and writing were top notch in all respects. I actually would have total confidence in the Maury ECE team that my kid had handling an influx of higher needs kids - not the least reason being the team had been at the school a long time and already knew how to teach all kids. But the wheels almost completely fall off in the upper grades. Some of this was covid but a lot of it was just a complete societal cratering in pedagogy for older kids where we have diminished the structure and practices that actually work to teach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they really wanted to try something like this, I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to start with two schools that are closer together in terms of at-risk population (DME’s stated concern) or test scores (correlated but obviously not the same).

People who bought within the Maury boundary paid a premium to do so because of the school. That’s not to say they are entitled to go there — boundaries change sometimes, etc — but just to say that these are people for whom going to a school with a certain cohort of on-grade level or advanced learners was important enough to pay a lot more money than they would have if they had bought a couple of blocks over. They are not going to “come quietly” if you are all of a sudden going to organize things in a way that will put their kids in classrooms that are now 50% below grade level.

If you start by evening out two schools closer together on those measures, you are likely to get less vociferous opposition, because the changes will be less dramatic, and in the process of doing it are likely to learn more about how to make this model both more effective academically and more attractive to families (important for retaining the more invested families/higher performing kids you are trying to spread around).

Or if there was more trust that all kids are going to get the level of instruction they need, instead of pretending it is wrong to want your kid to get that. And of course the current fad for disregarding, you know, actual teaching and learning methods, is much worse for poor kids than rich kids. If instruction at Maury hadn’t been so haphazard already it might have been an easier ask.

This for sure. Even now at Maury, several teachers have told me how difficult it is to effectively teach the range of children they are presented with in each class. Broadening the range — or weighting it further in one direction — would only make it that much harder to provide the needed education to each student there. If a school offers tracking, and you can be confident your kid will be taught content at their level with a cohort around the same level, you can fill the school however you want.

But you kind of miss my point. The teaching methods are horrible now, no matter the track. all computers, no homework, no drilling, no tests to study for, no books, no consistently corrected papers. No independent research. It’s bad for our privileged kids and even worse for unprivileged kids.

What school are you at? I have to give kids HW and teach PK4…
The upper grades only use the computer for iReady or exams. We also have physical books…
Also the drill and kill method has proven to be subpar at least a decade ago.
Kids also do projects and as far as testing it’s frequent because iReady tests, paper tests are kept to a minimum to avoid going even more overboard, teaching to test is something people try to reserve for CAPE.

You literally just listed at least 5 things in there that reinforce what I am saying about instructions. (and no, there are not text books.)

I surely did not, paper tests aren’t a form of teaching and again drill and kill isn’t learning. And maybe at your school there’s no physical books, my school has them.
Either way education does need a little less tech, this will only happen if we cut class sizes in half or the lower grades Pk-1 get 2 aides and the upper grades get 1.
Both are unlikely to happen unless parents want to advocate too?

Drill and kill is the way kids in fact learn, especially math.

Drill and kill might help kids memorize procedures, but research consistently shows that learning rooted in conceptual understanding, active participation, and varied practice leads to greater understanding, retention, and problem-solving ability—and even better exam outcomes.

Why are parents arguing with me on this? You can easily do a search to show I am correct. The way you learned as a kid is not how it’s taught now by any reputable teacher.

1. Active learning outperforms lectures (and by extension, rote drills).
2. Prioritizing conceptual understanding yields stronger retention than combining it with procedural drills.
3. Three decades of math reform reinforce the value of conceptual connection over rote rule-following.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they really wanted to try something like this, I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to start with two schools that are closer together in terms of at-risk population (DME’s stated concern) or test scores (correlated but obviously not the same).

People who bought within the Maury boundary paid a premium to do so because of the school. That’s not to say they are entitled to go there — boundaries change sometimes, etc — but just to say that these are people for whom going to a school with a certain cohort of on-grade level or advanced learners was important enough to pay a lot more money than they would have if they had bought a couple of blocks over. They are not going to “come quietly” if you are all of a sudden going to organize things in a way that will put their kids in classrooms that are now 50% below grade level.

If you start by evening out two schools closer together on those measures, you are likely to get less vociferous opposition, because the changes will be less dramatic, and in the process of doing it are likely to learn more about how to make this model both more effective academically and more attractive to families (important for retaining the more invested families/higher performing kids you are trying to spread around).

Or if there was more trust that all kids are going to get the level of instruction they need, instead of pretending it is wrong to want your kid to get that. And of course the current fad for disregarding, you know, actual teaching and learning methods, is much worse for poor kids than rich kids. If instruction at Maury hadn’t been so haphazard already it might have been an easier ask.

This for sure. Even now at Maury, several teachers have told me how difficult it is to effectively teach the range of children they are presented with in each class. Broadening the range — or weighting it further in one direction — would only make it that much harder to provide the needed education to each student there. If a school offers tracking, and you can be confident your kid will be taught content at their level with a cohort around the same level, you can fill the school however you want.

But you kind of miss my point. The teaching methods are horrible now, no matter the track. all computers, no homework, no drilling, no tests to study for, no books, no consistently corrected papers. No independent research. It’s bad for our privileged kids and even worse for unprivileged kids.

What school are you at? I have to give kids HW and teach PK4…
The upper grades only use the computer for iReady or exams. We also have physical books…
Also the drill and kill method has proven to be subpar at least a decade ago.
Kids also do projects and as far as testing it’s frequent because iReady tests, paper tests are kept to a minimum to avoid going even more overboard, teaching to test is something people try to reserve for CAPE.

You literally just listed at least 5 things in there that reinforce what I am saying about instructions. (and no, there are not text books.)

I surely did not, paper tests aren’t a form of teaching and again drill and kill isn’t learning. And maybe at your school there’s no physical books, my school has them.
Either way education does need a little less tech, this will only happen if we cut class sizes in half or the lower grades Pk-1 get 2 aides and the upper grades get 1.
Both are unlikely to happen unless parents want to advocate too?

Drill and kill is the way kids in fact learn, especially math.

Drill and kill might help kids memorize procedures, but research consistently shows that learning rooted in conceptual understanding, active participation, and varied practice leads to greater understanding, retention, and problem-solving ability—and even better exam outcomes.

Why are parents arguing with me on this? You can easily do a search to show I am correct. The way you learned as a kid is not how it’s taught now by any reputable teacher.

1. Active learning outperforms lectures (and by extension, rote drills).
2. Prioritizing conceptual understanding yields stronger retention than combining it with procedural drills.
3. Three decades of math reform reinforce the value of conceptual connection over rote rule-following.

Because you're conflating fluency practice with "rote drills" whatever that means. Fluency is important in math. It is there to support conceptual understanding, not to replace it. Practice and repetition bring concepts from short-term to long-term memory where they can be processed at a deeper level and retained over time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they really wanted to try something like this, I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to start with two schools that are closer together in terms of at-risk population (DME’s stated concern) or test scores (correlated but obviously not the same).

People who bought within the Maury boundary paid a premium to do so because of the school. That’s not to say they are entitled to go there — boundaries change sometimes, etc — but just to say that these are people for whom going to a school with a certain cohort of on-grade level or advanced learners was important enough to pay a lot more money than they would have if they had bought a couple of blocks over. They are not going to “come quietly” if you are all of a sudden going to organize things in a way that will put their kids in classrooms that are now 50% below grade level.

If you start by evening out two schools closer together on those measures, you are likely to get less vociferous opposition, because the changes will be less dramatic, and in the process of doing it are likely to learn more about how to make this model both more effective academically and more attractive to families (important for retaining the more invested families/higher performing kids you are trying to spread around).

Or if there was more trust that all kids are going to get the level of instruction they need, instead of pretending it is wrong to want your kid to get that. And of course the current fad for disregarding, you know, actual teaching and learning methods, is much worse for poor kids than rich kids. If instruction at Maury hadn’t been so haphazard already it might have been an easier ask.

This for sure. Even now at Maury, several teachers have told me how difficult it is to effectively teach the range of children they are presented with in each class. Broadening the range — or weighting it further in one direction — would only make it that much harder to provide the needed education to each student there. If a school offers tracking, and you can be confident your kid will be taught content at their level with a cohort around the same level, you can fill the school however you want.

But you kind of miss my point. The teaching methods are horrible now, no matter the track. all computers, no homework, no drilling, no tests to study for, no books, no consistently corrected papers. No independent research. It’s bad for our privileged kids and even worse for unprivileged kids.

What school are you at? I have to give kids HW and teach PK4…
The upper grades only use the computer for iReady or exams. We also have physical books…
Also the drill and kill method has proven to be subpar at least a decade ago.
Kids also do projects and as far as testing it’s frequent because iReady tests, paper tests are kept to a minimum to avoid going even more overboard, teaching to test is something people try to reserve for CAPE.

You literally just listed at least 5 things in there that reinforce what I am saying about instructions. (and no, there are not text books.)

I surely did not, paper tests aren’t a form of teaching and again drill and kill isn’t learning. And maybe at your school there’s no physical books, my school has them.
Either way education does need a little less tech, this will only happen if we cut class sizes in half or the lower grades Pk-1 get 2 aides and the upper grades get 1.
Both are unlikely to happen unless parents want to advocate too?

Drill and kill is the way kids in fact learn, especially math.

Drill and kill might help kids memorize procedures, but research consistently shows that learning rooted in conceptual understanding, active participation, and varied practice leads to greater understanding, retention, and problem-solving ability—and even better exam outcomes.

Why are parents arguing with me on this? You can easily do a search to show I am correct. The way you learned as a kid is not how it’s taught now by any reputable teacher.

1. Active learning outperforms lectures (and by extension, rote drills).
2. Prioritizing conceptual understanding yields stronger retention than combining it with procedural drills.
3. Three decades of math reform reinforce the value of conceptual connection over rote rule-following.

yeah our plummeting national tests scores sure do show that we are doing a good job with math.

“Conceptual connection” literally cannot happen if you don’t drill and practice the math facts and later practice sufficiently with problem sets. Let’s not even get started on the fact that regardless of the teaching philosophy, we are migrating to teaching via computer programs instead of paper and pencil, in a way that even more degrades the focused practice and recall actually needed to learn.

But again thank you for showing why I don’t trust the current “ed policy” trends for a second. If you all had your way kids would learn even less than they already do. I can afford $500 month to send my kid to Mathnasium to fill in the gaps but most DCPS parents cannot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they really wanted to try something like this, I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to start with two schools that are closer together in terms of at-risk population (DME’s stated concern) or test scores (correlated but obviously not the same).

People who bought within the Maury boundary paid a premium to do so because of the school. That’s not to say they are entitled to go there — boundaries change sometimes, etc — but just to say that these are people for whom going to a school with a certain cohort of on-grade level or advanced learners was important enough to pay a lot more money than they would have if they had bought a couple of blocks over. They are not going to “come quietly” if you are all of a sudden going to organize things in a way that will put their kids in classrooms that are now 50% below grade level.

If you start by evening out two schools closer together on those measures, you are likely to get less vociferous opposition, because the changes will be less dramatic, and in the process of doing it are likely to learn more about how to make this model both more effective academically and more attractive to families (important for retaining the more invested families/higher performing kids you are trying to spread around).

Or if there was more trust that all kids are going to get the level of instruction they need, instead of pretending it is wrong to want your kid to get that. And of course the current fad for disregarding, you know, actual teaching and learning methods, is much worse for poor kids than rich kids. If instruction at Maury hadn’t been so haphazard already it might have been an easier ask.

This for sure. Even now at Maury, several teachers have told me how difficult it is to effectively teach the range of children they are presented with in each class. Broadening the range — or weighting it further in one direction — would only make it that much harder to provide the needed education to each student there. If a school offers tracking, and you can be confident your kid will be taught content at their level with a cohort around the same level, you can fill the school however you want.

But you kind of miss my point. The teaching methods are horrible now, no matter the track. all computers, no homework, no drilling, no tests to study for, no books, no consistently corrected papers. No independent research. It’s bad for our privileged kids and even worse for unprivileged kids.

What school are you at? I have to give kids HW and teach PK4…
The upper grades only use the computer for iReady or exams. We also have physical books…
Also the drill and kill method has proven to be subpar at least a decade ago.
Kids also do projects and as far as testing it’s frequent because iReady tests, paper tests are kept to a minimum to avoid going even more overboard, teaching to test is something people try to reserve for CAPE.

You literally just listed at least 5 things in there that reinforce what I am saying about instructions. (and no, there are not text books.)

I surely did not, paper tests aren’t a form of teaching and again drill and kill isn’t learning. And maybe at your school there’s no physical books, my school has them.
Either way education does need a little less tech, this will only happen if we cut class sizes in half or the lower grades Pk-1 get 2 aides and the upper grades get 1.
Both are unlikely to happen unless parents want to advocate too?

Drill and kill is the way kids in fact learn, especially math.

Drill and kill might help kids memorize procedures, but research consistently shows that learning rooted in conceptual understanding, active participation, and varied practice leads to greater understanding, retention, and problem-solving ability—and even better exam outcomes.

Why are parents arguing with me on this? You can easily do a search to show I am correct. The way you learned as a kid is not how it’s taught now by any reputable teacher.

1. Active learning outperforms lectures (and by extension, rote drills).
2. Prioritizing conceptual understanding yields stronger retention than combining it with procedural drills.
3. Three decades of math reform reinforce the value of conceptual connection over rote rule-following.

Because you're conflating fluency practice with "rote drills" whatever that means. Fluency is important in math. It is there to support conceptual understanding, not to replace it. Practice and repetition bring concepts from short-term to long-term memory where they can be processed at a deeper level and retained over time.

Thank you for explaining this better than I can. I know I am far from the only parent of an older child who instinctively knows that math instruction is failing but don’t have the precise vocabulary to explain why. At the upper elementary level they don’t even seem to have any concept of a sequence of skills that need to be learned through repetition in order to proceed to the next level. It was kind of wild when I figured this out when I tried to get the school to give me a syllabus of content my kid needed to learn that year so I could support him at home. It was like that was a totally foreign concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they really wanted to try something like this, I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to start with two schools that are closer together in terms of at-risk population (DME’s stated concern) or test scores (correlated but obviously not the same).

People who bought within the Maury boundary paid a premium to do so because of the school. That’s not to say they are entitled to go there — boundaries change sometimes, etc — but just to say that these are people for whom going to a school with a certain cohort of on-grade level or advanced learners was important enough to pay a lot more money than they would have if they had bought a couple of blocks over. They are not going to “come quietly” if you are all of a sudden going to organize things in a way that will put their kids in classrooms that are now 50% below grade level.

If you start by evening out two schools closer together on those measures, you are likely to get less vociferous opposition, because the changes will be less dramatic, and in the process of doing it are likely to learn more about how to make this model both more effective academically and more attractive to families (important for retaining the more invested families/higher performing kids you are trying to spread around).

Or if there was more trust that all kids are going to get the level of instruction they need, instead of pretending it is wrong to want your kid to get that. And of course the current fad for disregarding, you know, actual teaching and learning methods, is much worse for poor kids than rich kids. If instruction at Maury hadn’t been so haphazard already it might have been an easier ask.

This for sure. Even now at Maury, several teachers have told me how difficult it is to effectively teach the range of children they are presented with in each class. Broadening the range — or weighting it further in one direction — would only make it that much harder to provide the needed education to each student there. If a school offers tracking, and you can be confident your kid will be taught content at their level with a cohort around the same level, you can fill the school however you want.

But you kind of miss my point. The teaching methods are horrible now, no matter the track. all computers, no homework, no drilling, no tests to study for, no books, no consistently corrected papers. No independent research. It’s bad for our privileged kids and even worse for unprivileged kids.

What school are you at? I have to give kids HW and teach PK4…
The upper grades only use the computer for iReady or exams. We also have physical books…
Also the drill and kill method has proven to be subpar at least a decade ago.
Kids also do projects and as far as testing it’s frequent because iReady tests, paper tests are kept to a minimum to avoid going even more overboard, teaching to test is something people try to reserve for CAPE.

You literally just listed at least 5 things in there that reinforce what I am saying about instructions. (and no, there are not text books.)

I surely did not, paper tests aren’t a form of teaching and again drill and kill isn’t learning. And maybe at your school there’s no physical books, my school has them.
Either way education does need a little less tech, this will only happen if we cut class sizes in half or the lower grades Pk-1 get 2 aides and the upper grades get 1.
Both are unlikely to happen unless parents want to advocate too?

Drill and kill is the way kids in fact learn, especially math.

Drill and kill might help kids memorize procedures, but research consistently shows that learning rooted in conceptual understanding, active participation, and varied practice leads to greater understanding, retention, and problem-solving ability—and even better exam outcomes.

Why are parents arguing with me on this? You can easily do a search to show I am correct. The way you learned as a kid is not how it’s taught now by any reputable teacher.

1. Active learning outperforms lectures (and by extension, rote drills).
2. Prioritizing conceptual understanding yields stronger retention than combining it with procedural drills.
3. Three decades of math reform reinforce the value of conceptual connection over rote rule-following.

yeah our plummeting national tests scores sure do show that we are doing a good job with math.

“Conceptual connection” literally cannot happen if you don’t drill and practice the math facts and later practice sufficiently with problem sets. Let’s not even get started on the fact that regardless of the teaching philosophy, we are migrating to teaching via computer programs instead of paper and pencil, in a way that even more degrades the focused practice and recall actually needed to learn.

But again thank you for showing why I don’t trust the current “ed policy” trends for a second. If you all had your way kids would learn even less than they already do. I can afford $500 month to send my kid to Mathnasium to fill in the gaps but most DCPS parents cannot.

I did not say people actually teach this way at all schools. Drill and kill is very much alive.
Weird flex but ok, glad you can afford it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they really wanted to try something like this, I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to start with two schools that are closer together in terms of at-risk population (DME’s stated concern) or test scores (correlated but obviously not the same).

People who bought within the Maury boundary paid a premium to do so because of the school. That’s not to say they are entitled to go there — boundaries change sometimes, etc — but just to say that these are people for whom going to a school with a certain cohort of on-grade level or advanced learners was important enough to pay a lot more money than they would have if they had bought a couple of blocks over. They are not going to “come quietly” if you are all of a sudden going to organize things in a way that will put their kids in classrooms that are now 50% below grade level.

If you start by evening out two schools closer together on those measures, you are likely to get less vociferous opposition, because the changes will be less dramatic, and in the process of doing it are likely to learn more about how to make this model both more effective academically and more attractive to families (important for retaining the more invested families/higher performing kids you are trying to spread around).

Or if there was more trust that all kids are going to get the level of instruction they need, instead of pretending it is wrong to want your kid to get that. And of course the current fad for disregarding, you know, actual teaching and learning methods, is much worse for poor kids than rich kids. If instruction at Maury hadn’t been so haphazard already it might have been an easier ask.

This for sure. Even now at Maury, several teachers have told me how difficult it is to effectively teach the range of children they are presented with in each class. Broadening the range — or weighting it further in one direction — would only make it that much harder to provide the needed education to each student there. If a school offers tracking, and you can be confident your kid will be taught content at their level with a cohort around the same level, you can fill the school however you want.

But you kind of miss my point. The teaching methods are horrible now, no matter the track. all computers, no homework, no drilling, no tests to study for, no books, no consistently corrected papers. No independent research. It’s bad for our privileged kids and even worse for unprivileged kids.

What school are you at? I have to give kids HW and teach PK4…
The upper grades only use the computer for iReady or exams. We also have physical books…
Also the drill and kill method has proven to be subpar at least a decade ago.
Kids also do projects and as far as testing it’s frequent because iReady tests, paper tests are kept to a minimum to avoid going even more overboard, teaching to test is something people try to reserve for CAPE.

You literally just listed at least 5 things in there that reinforce what I am saying about instructions. (and no, there are not text books.)

I surely did not, paper tests aren’t a form of teaching and again drill and kill isn’t learning. And maybe at your school there’s no physical books, my school has them.
Either way education does need a little less tech, this will only happen if we cut class sizes in half or the lower grades Pk-1 get 2 aides and the upper grades get 1.
Both are unlikely to happen unless parents want to advocate too?

Drill and kill is the way kids in fact learn, especially math.

Drill and kill might help kids memorize procedures, but research consistently shows that learning rooted in conceptual understanding, active participation, and varied practice leads to greater understanding, retention, and problem-solving ability—and even better exam outcomes.

Why are parents arguing with me on this? You can easily do a search to show I am correct. The way you learned as a kid is not how it’s taught now by any reputable teacher.

1. Active learning outperforms lectures (and by extension, rote drills).
2. Prioritizing conceptual understanding yields stronger retention than combining it with procedural drills.
3. Three decades of math reform reinforce the value of conceptual connection over rote rule-following.

Because you're conflating fluency practice with "rote drills" whatever that means. Fluency is important in math. It is there to support conceptual understanding, not to replace it. Practice and repetition bring concepts from short-term to long-term memory where they can be processed at a deeper level and retained over time.

You are misrepresenting what I actually said and oversimplifying the research on math instruction.

Let's not Strawman here, I never said fluency practice (repetition to build automaticity) was useless. I criticized rote drills without conceptual grounding. Current evidence shows fluency practice works best when it’s paired with conceptual understanding, not when it’s done in isolation. You are conflating “repetition” with “rote” -Repetition can be meaningful (embedded in problem solving) or rote (mindless pattern-following). You imply all repetition is equally valuable, which is not supported by learning science. Without meaning attached, repetition tends to build brittle, short-term performance rather than flexible long-term understanding.

You're also ignoring the order of learning –and your framing makes it sound like procedural fluency naturally leads to conceptual understanding. But in math education research, the relationship is reciprocal, and when students start with conceptual grounding, fluency gains are stronger and more transferable.

Fluency matters — but research shows rote drills without understanding build brittle skills, while fluency grounded in concepts lasts and transfers.