WCP article on Watkins

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I sense [detractors] think that somehow those [achievement gap] efforts harm the outcomes for white students or other students,” says one parent who supports Bell. “Maybe they think if you’re focusing efforts on the achievement gap, you can’t achieve for all students.”

I think that this is a real concern. Do Watkins families feel that children doing above grade level work are pushed to reach even farther? That is not the sense I have come away with after speaking with Watkins parents.

Do Watkins family think their kids are MORE important than some other Watkins family kids? The reasonable, community-minded approach would be to work to serve both sets of students, particularly since you chose to live in a city and neighborhood that you know is beset by income inequality. Not to take over the school for your own personal benefit.l

No, but they certainly think their children are equally important.

By the way the Watkins neighborhood is not beset with income equality. The income equality comes from OOB. Doesn't make the kids any less important, but you should get your facts right.

The idea that the UMC kids at Watkins are somehow being harmed by attempts to address income inequality is just ludicrous.

When the attitude of some teachers is that your child is already ahead and therefore it doesn't matter if they make progress during the year, then yes, they are being harmed.

Yeah, I don't believe that's the case. Even if it is, sounds like it's one bad teacher -- and also that there's no evidence that NOT helping the kids at the bottom would help the kids at the top.

Preventing (or at least, not encouraging) the further advancement of the advanced kids will help reduce the achievement gap. Helping the advanced kids excel increases the gap. It's not "ludicrous," it's common sense.

That sounds like a really intense conspiracy theory, and I seriously doubt it's true.

[Anonymous]

I think it's weird that some people here don't think a teacher can do both: meet the needs of students that are below and above grade level.

I do it every single day in my classroom. (I also meet the needs of the on grade level students too)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I sense [detractors] think that somehow those [achievement gap] efforts harm the outcomes for white students or other students,” says one parent who supports Bell. “Maybe they think if you’re focusing efforts on the achievement gap, you can’t achieve for all students.”

I think that this is a real concern. Do Watkins families feel that children doing above grade level work are pushed to reach even farther? That is not the sense I have come away with after speaking with Watkins parents.

Do Watkins family think their kids are MORE important than some other Watkins family kids? The reasonable, community-minded approach would be to work to serve both sets of students, particularly since you chose to live in a city and neighborhood that you know is beset by income inequality. Not to take over the school for your own personal benefit.l

No, but they certainly think their children are equally important.

By the way the Watkins neighborhood is not beset with income equality. The income equality comes from OOB. Doesn't make the kids any less important, but you should get your facts right.

The idea that the UMC kids at Watkins are somehow being harmed by attempts to address income inequality is just ludicrous.

When the attitude of some teachers is that your child is already ahead and therefore it doesn't matter if they make progress during the year, then yes, they are being harmed.

Yeah, I don't believe that's the case. Even if it is, sounds like it's one bad teacher -- and also that there's no evidence that NOT helping the kids at the bottom would help the kids at the top.

Preventing (or at least, not encouraging) the further advancement of the advanced kids will help reduce the achievement gap. Helping the advanced kids excel increases the gap. It's not "ludicrous," it's common sense.

That sounds like a really intense conspiracy theory, and I seriously doubt it's true.

the school isn't the reason advanced kids are advanced and conversely they can't them back academically. This is just stupid tin foil hat trolling from PP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I sense [detractors] think that somehow those [achievement gap] efforts harm the outcomes for white students or other students,” says one parent who supports Bell. “Maybe they think if you’re focusing efforts on the achievement gap, you can’t achieve for all students.”

I think that this is a real concern. Do Watkins families feel that children doing above grade level work are pushed to reach even farther? That is not the sense I have come away with after speaking with Watkins parents.

Do Watkins family think their kids are MORE important than some other Watkins family kids? The reasonable, community-minded approach would be to work to serve both sets of students, particularly since you chose to live in a city and neighborhood that you know is beset by income inequality. Not to take over the school for your own personal benefit.l

No, but they certainly think their children are equally important.

By the way the Watkins neighborhood is not beset with income equality. The income equality comes from OOB. Doesn't make the kids any less important, but you should get your facts right.

The idea that the UMC kids at Watkins are somehow being harmed by attempts to address income inequality is just ludicrous.

When the attitude of some teachers is that your child is already ahead and therefore it doesn't matter if they make progress during the year, then yes, they are being harmed.

Yeah, I don't believe that's the case. Even if it is, sounds like it's one bad teacher -- and also that there's no evidence that NOT helping the kids at the bottom would help the kids at the top.

Preventing (or at least, not encouraging) the further advancement of the advanced kids will help reduce the achievement gap. Helping the advanced kids excel increases the gap. It's not "ludicrous," it's common sense.

That sounds like a really intense conspiracy theory, and I seriously doubt it's true.

the school isn't the reason advanced kids are advanced and conversely they can't them back academically. This is just stupid tin foil hat trolling from PP

^^hold them back

[Anonymous]

^Don't think it's a conspiracy - just common sense.

If the top kids are fine, leave them and certainly don't advance them while you work to bring up the rest. Just like there's no point in worrying about whining rich parents who are using our school for a few years as a way station to save money for the eventual private they will attend. Ignore them and they will go away.

DCPS may not be brilliant educators, but they have street smarts and see reality clearly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^Don't think it's a conspiracy - just common sense.

If the top kids are fine, leave them and certainly don't advance them while you work to bring up the rest. Just like there's no point in worrying about whining rich parents who are using our school for a few years as a way station to save money for the eventual private they will attend. Ignore them and they will go away.

DCPS may not be brilliant educators, but they have street smarts and see reality clearly.

This is really insulting to teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^Don't think it's a conspiracy - just common sense.

If the top kids are fine, leave them and certainly don't advance them while you work to bring up the rest. Just like there's no point in worrying about whining rich parents who are using our school for a few years as a way station to save money for the eventual private they will attend. Ignore them and they will go away.

DCPS may not be brilliant educators, but they have street smarts and see reality clearly.

This is really insulting to teachers.

I was insulted by having my child bored and ignored at Watkins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the same lousy school that Snowden got away from to go to Logan, giving a call to Kaya. Ha! Norquist is correct. Capitol Hill deserves a neighborhood school. When the heck is that going to happen?

Wrong. This wasn't her neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

Lafayette, Watkins then I heard Powell tried as well.

Any luck with any of them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lafayette, Watkins then I heard Powell tried as well.

Any luck with any of them?

Tried what? Your post is not clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lafayette, Watkins then I heard Powell tried as well.

Any luck with any of them?

Tried what? Your post is not clear.

Remove a Principal[u]

[Anonymous]

The article doesn't touch on the crux of the issue. Several other Cap Hill neighborhood schools now support majority in-bound populations, or will shortly - Brent, Maury, SWS (mostly Hill, was mostly IB before they got the Goding building) and Ludlow-Taylor coming up. But Watkins doesn't attract nearly as many kids from the Cluster district as it could and, arguably, should. The school is only around one-quarter in-bound, much less than it was a decade ago, when it reached a high of over 40% IB and white. The main problem is that high SES Watkins parents commonly bail after 2nd or 3rd grade, including for Ludlow these days. Principal Bell doesn't sound like the best choice for the school - if she can't please her district's well-heeled parents, she won't survive in a city where upper middle-class parents commonly buy very expensive homes to gain access to high-performing schools. The Watkins IB parents feel left behind as a group. They know that their star is not rising relative to nearby programs (despite endless claims to the contrary on these boards, and around the hood) and many ultimately wish they'd bought real property in another Hill ES school district. The school has been troubled year in and year out since the Montessori and SWS programs found their own homes. These were the programs most of the neighborhood parents went for, and celebrated. The fancy renovation may not make much difference come August.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The article doesn't touch on the crux of the issue. Several other Cap Hill neighborhood schools now support majority in-bound populations, or will shortly - Brent, Maury, SWS (mostly Hill, was mostly IB before they got the Goding building) and Ludlow-Taylor coming up. But Watkins doesn't attract nearly as many kids from the Cluster district as it could and, arguably, should. The school is only around one-quarter in-bound, much less than it was a decade ago, when it reached a high of over 40% IB and white. The main problem is that high SES Watkins parents commonly bail after 2nd or 3rd grade, including for Ludlow these days. Principal Bell doesn't sound like the best choice for the school - if she can't please her district's well-heeled parents, she won't survive in a city where upper middle-class parents commonly buy very expensive homes to gain access to high-performing schools. The Watkins IB parents feel left behind as a group. They know that their star is not rising relative to nearby programs (despite endless claims to the contrary on these boards, and around the hood) and many ultimately wish they'd bought real property in another Hill ES school district. The school has been troubled year in and year out since the Montessori and SWS programs found their own homes. These were the programs most of the neighborhood parents went for, and celebrated. The fancy renovation may not make much difference come August.

me me me me me me me

Is what I hear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article doesn't touch on the crux of the issue. Several other Cap Hill neighborhood schools now support majority in-bound populations, or will shortly - Brent, Maury, SWS (mostly Hill, was mostly IB before they got the Goding building) and Ludlow-Taylor coming up. But Watkins doesn't attract nearly as many kids from the Cluster district as it could and, arguably, should. The school is only around one-quarter in-bound, much less than it was a decade ago, when it reached a high of over 40% IB and white. The main problem is that high SES Watkins parents commonly bail after 2nd or 3rd grade, including for Ludlow these days. Principal Bell doesn't sound like the best choice for the school - if she can't please her district's well-heeled parents, she won't survive in a city where upper middle-class parents commonly buy very expensive homes to gain access to high-performing schools. The Watkins IB parents feel left behind as a group. They know that their star is not rising relative to nearby programs (despite endless claims to the contrary on these boards, and around the hood) and many ultimately wish they'd bought real property in another Hill ES school district. The school has been troubled year in and year out since the Montessori and SWS programs found their own homes. These were the programs most of the neighborhood parents went for, and celebrated. The fancy renovation may not make much difference come August.

me me me me me me me

Is what I hear.

Principal Bell's job is to educate the 436 students who enrolled in her school, period. Not catering or managing the egos of the wealthiest parents.

Providing extra support to those students who need it to get to grade level is what she is supposed to do, and we should be thanking her. Otherwise they will wind up in the Ward 6 middle schools doing 2nd or 3rd grade work..

Has she actually removed advanced instruction for anyone or taken anything away from the students who are at or above grade level?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The article doesn't touch on the crux of the issue. Several other Cap Hill neighborhood schools now support majority in-bound populations, or will shortly - Brent, Maury, SWS (mostly Hill, was mostly IB before they got the Goding building) and Ludlow-Taylor coming up. But Watkins doesn't attract nearly as many kids from the Cluster district as it could and, arguably, should. The school is only around one-quarter in-bound, much less than it was a decade ago, when it reached a high of over 40% IB and white. The main problem is that high SES Watkins parents commonly bail after 2nd or 3rd grade, including for Ludlow these days. Principal Bell doesn't sound like the best choice for the school - if she can't please her district's well-heeled parents, she won't survive in a city where upper middle-class parents commonly buy very expensive homes to gain access to high-performing schools. The Watkins IB parents feel left behind as a group. They know that their star is not rising relative to nearby programs (despite endless claims to the contrary on these boards, and around the hood) and many ultimately wish they'd bought real property in another Hill ES school district. The school has been troubled year in and year out since the Montessori and SWS programs found their own homes. These were the programs most of the neighborhood parents went for, and celebrated. The fancy renovation may not make much difference come August.

That's fantasy. SWS was ECE and only PK4 and K at that. Watkins Montessori was a citywide program for early childhood starting at 3, and it didn't expand until it moved to Logan and subsequently expanded to 8th.