When should we listen to those small, nagging doubts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm really feeling this now that DC is in 6th at a HRCS. DC is so bright, so capable of stepping up to the plate academically, yet his school is playing academic softball.

Example: DC is a voracious reader with a large vocabulary, yet the school is "teaching" vocab words he's used for years.

Sadly, I guess that's what I should expect from a school with so many kids with sub-4 PARCC scores and a mindset that says kids 2 years behind and 2 years ahead should be thrown together and taught the same lessons.

Have you discussed your concerns with the teacher to make sure there is adequate differentiation in place?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm really feeling this now that DC is in 6th at a HRCS. DC is so bright, so capable of stepping up to the plate academically, yet his school is playing academic softball.

Example: DC is a voracious reader with a large vocabulary, yet the school is "teaching" vocab words he's used for years.

Sadly, I guess that's what I should expect from a school with so many kids with sub-4 PARCC scores and a mindset that says kids 2 years behind and 2 years ahead should be thrown together and taught the same lessons.

Have you discussed your concerns with the teacher to make sure there is adequate differentiation in place?

It's public school, for the general public, not sure what you expect but supplement and teach your child to learn and do things by themselves.

[Anonymous]

I'd move on, PP, since it's just not going to get better the higher up you go. The low SES kids just have too many needs. DCPS teachers come under little pressure to differentiate effectively. As long as your kid is on track to pass the PARCC with a 4 in 3rd grade, he or she isn't worth pushing in this system of modest ambitions.

You generally have to buy or rent in-boundary for a school that's majority high SES, or lottery into one, to ensure challenge after around 2nd grade. This explains why the overwhelming majority of high SES DC parents who stay in the public system past the early grades do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd move on, PP, since it's just not going to get better the higher up you go. The low SES kids just have too many needs. DCPS teachers come under little pressure to differentiate effectively. As long as your kid is on track to pass the PARCC with a 4 in 3rd grade, he or she isn't worth pushing in this system of modest ambitions.

You generally have to buy or rent in-boundary for a school that's majority high SES, or lottery into one, to ensure challenge after around 2nd grade. This explains why the overwhelming majority of high SES DC parents who stay in the public system past the early grades do this.

But what would happen if you didn't do that? If you don't move or lottery, what would actually happen to your child. Lets just cover the bases for elementary, and assume that somehow you attend a decent-good Middle after elementary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm really feeling this now that DC is in 6th at a HRCS. DC is so bright, so capable of stepping up to the plate academically, yet his school is playing academic softball.

Example: DC is a voracious reader with a large vocabulary, yet the school is "teaching" vocab words he's used for years.

Sadly, I guess that's what I should expect from a school with so many kids with sub-4 PARCC scores and a mindset that says kids 2 years behind and 2 years ahead should be thrown together and taught the same lessons.

Have you discussed your concerns with the teacher to make sure there is adequate differentiation in place?

It's public school, for the general public, not sure what you expect but supplement and teach your child to learn and do things by themselves.

I posted previously here. Our DCPS did do exactly that. Why do you assume they won’t?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd move on, PP, since it's just not going to get better the higher up you go. The low SES kids just have too many needs. DCPS teachers come under little pressure to differentiate effectively. As long as your kid is on track to pass the PARCC with a 4 in 3rd grade, he or she isn't worth pushing in this system of modest ambitions.

You generally have to buy or rent in-boundary for a school that's majority high SES, or lottery into one, to ensure challenge after around 2nd grade. This explains why the overwhelming majority of high SES DC parents who stay in the public system past the early grades do this.

This is such a gross and untrue position. It’s not an accurate representation of our experience in a title 1 school. It paints the teachers, principal, and fellow students in such a bad light with so many false assumptions.

You don’t have to do anything like this. You’ll be a better person if you can overcome the biases of the PP.

[Anonymous]

I had one child who was in one of the first cohorts of gentrifying kids in a school. What I noticed with that experience is that the teachers were not experienced in differentiating for this type of student- it was a new population and they had to figure out the best way to meet the needs of that population. It isn't just about the academics or advance students- they have usually seen those before. It was also about dealing with the DCUM type of parenting. Very involved, pushing for more differentiation, asking for constant updates, wanting to know how to supplement, etc. There were also more resources available (financial contributions, parent volunteers, contacts, etc.) and the teachers were not yet experienced with tapping into those resources.

Several years later, my second child went through the school. There was a night and day difference. Teachers knew from day one how to "teach" these kids, as well as how to talk/deal with their families.

If there are a couple of cohorts ahead of you that fit your child, then the teachers and school are probably adjusted to what your child needs and will be able to accommodate accordingly. If you child is in one of the first cohorts, it is more likely that the teachers are still figuring this out, and they may take some time to figure out how to best serve the new population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had one child who was in one of the first cohorts of gentrifying kids in a school. What I noticed with that experience is that the teachers were not experienced in differentiating for this type of student- it was a new population and they had to figure out the best way to meet the needs of that population. It isn't just about the academics or advance students- they have usually seen those before. It was also about dealing with the DCUM type of parenting. Very involved, pushing for more differentiation, asking for constant updates, wanting to know how to supplement, etc. There were also more resources available (financial contributions, parent volunteers, contacts, etc.) and the teachers were not yet experienced with tapping into those resources.

Several years later, my second child went through the school. There was a night and day difference. Teachers knew from day one how to "teach" these kids, as well as how to talk/deal with their families.

If there are a couple of cohorts ahead of you that fit your child, then the teachers and school are probably adjusted to what your child needs and will be able to accommodate accordingly. If you child is in one of the first cohorts, it is more likely that the teachers are still figuring this out, and they may take some time to figure out how to best serve the new population.

Do you feel like your first child got a notably worse education for it? Or did it just require more work on your part?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had one child who was in one of the first cohorts of gentrifying kids in a school. What I noticed with that experience is that the teachers were not experienced in differentiating for this type of student- it was a new population and they had to figure out the best way to meet the needs of that population. It isn't just about the academics or advance students- they have usually seen those before. It was also about dealing with the DCUM type of parenting. Very involved, pushing for more differentiation, asking for constant updates, wanting to know how to supplement, etc. There were also more resources available (financial contributions, parent volunteers, contacts, etc.) and the teachers were not yet experienced with tapping into those resources.

Several years later, my second child went through the school. There was a night and day difference. Teachers knew from day one how to "teach" these kids, as well as how to talk/deal with their families.

If there are a couple of cohorts ahead of you that fit your child, then the teachers and school are probably adjusted to what your child needs and will be able to accommodate accordingly. If you child is in one of the first cohorts, it is more likely that the teachers are still figuring this out, and they may take some time to figure out how to best serve the new population.

Do you feel like your first child got a notably worse education for it? Or did it just require more work on your part?

You hit the nail on the head. It was more work on my part for the first. Figuring out the right questions to ask, supplementing (and realizing it wasn't necessary), not supplementing (and realizing we needed to), establishing a relationship with the school (without being the annoying parent), etc. With my second child, it was so much easier.. (although, to be fair, some of that could have just been because I was a more experienced parent).

[Anonymous]

Not PP, but I felt like the education was just different. The Title I was more customized and required her to work more independently. The HRCS we are at now, she is part of a group and expected to work well with others. Both have value. Different programming at each school as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had one child who was in one of the first cohorts of gentrifying kids in a school. What I noticed with that experience is that the teachers were not experienced in differentiating for this type of student- it was a new population and they had to figure out the best way to meet the needs of that population. It isn't just about the academics or advance students- they have usually seen those before. It was also about dealing with the DCUM type of parenting. Very involved, pushing for more differentiation, asking for constant updates, wanting to know how to supplement, etc. There were also more resources available (financial contributions, parent volunteers, contacts, etc.) and the teachers were not yet experienced with tapping into those resources.

Several years later, my second child went through the school. There was a night and day difference. Teachers knew from day one how to "teach" these kids, as well as how to talk/deal with their families.

If there are a couple of cohorts ahead of you that fit your child, then the teachers and school are probably adjusted to what your child needs and will be able to accommodate accordingly. If you child is in one of the first cohorts, it is more likely that the teachers are still figuring this out, and they may take some time to figure out how to best serve the new population.

Do you feel like your first child got a notably worse education for it? Or did it just require more work on your part?

You hit the nail on the head. It was more work on my part for the first. Figuring out the right questions to ask, supplementing (and realizing it wasn't necessary), not supplementing (and realizing we needed to), establishing a relationship with the school (without being the annoying parent), etc. With my second child, it was so much easier.. (although, to be fair, some of that could have just been because I was a more experienced parent).

That was very much my experience too. I would encourage others to join in the same way. It’s both selfish (helps my kid) but can also be the right thing for other kids at the school. I know there were several underserved kids who were in the smart kids cohort along with my kids. It’s important to be conscientious that you’re not working to the detriment of other kids in the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm really feeling this now that DC is in 6th at a HRCS. DC is so bright, so capable of stepping up to the plate academically, yet his school is playing academic softball.

Example: DC is a voracious reader with a large vocabulary, yet the school is "teaching" vocab words he's used for years.

Sadly, I guess that's what I should expect from a school with so many kids with sub-4 PARCC scores and a mindset that says kids 2 years behind and 2 years ahead should be thrown together and taught the same lessons.

Have you discussed your concerns with the teacher to make sure there is adequate differentiation in place?

It's public school, for the general public, not sure what you expect but supplement and teach your child to learn and do things by themselves.

I posted previously here. Our DCPS did do exactly that. Why do you assume they won’t?

Different poster, but our DCPS also differentiates for the kids. I have a feeling DCPS schools do this more than some charters.

[Anonymous]

As a teacher, I say go if you have the option. As much as I try to differentiate for my high-achieving teenage students, they would be getting so much more in a classroom where the average PARCC score was above 2.5. (PARCC is my shorthand here.) They might get more diversity of life-experience where they are, but I also feel like they're getting the message that their needs are not being met. It's a disappointing thing and the reality I have to deal with -- but not necessarily that you should have to deal with.

[Anonymous]

As a teacher my opinion is that academically your child is fine anywhere through about 4th grade. Up until now, they are being taught primary skills: read, write, calculate. Starting in 5th they should be starting to use these skills to learn to think critically, formulate persuasive arguments, compare and contrast texts, form opinions based on multiple sources of information, communicate clearly and concisely, absorb copious information about the sciences, history, social studenies and perform advanced math. They need the highest quality school environment, staff and peer grou that you can manage. Bright kids will get the primary skills no matter the school environment—they don’t “need” advancement. But through adolescence and teenage years they are forming their identities and attitudes about themselves as students and thinkers. You must give them the best environment you can manage in order to do those things. Do not compromise after 4th grade

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd move on, PP, since it's just not going to get better the higher up you go. The low SES kids just have too many needs. DCPS teachers come under little pressure to differentiate effectively. As long as your kid is on track to pass the PARCC with a 4 in 3rd grade, he or she isn't worth pushing in this system of modest ambitions.

You generally have to buy or rent in-boundary for a school that's majority high SES, or lottery into one, to ensure challenge after around 2nd grade. This explains why the overwhelming majority of high SES DC parents who stay in the public system past the early grades do this.

This is such a gross and untrue position. It’s not an accurate representation of our experience in a title 1 school. It paints the teachers, principal, and fellow students in such a bad light with so many false assumptions.

You don’t have to do anything like this. You’ll be a better person if you can overcome the biases of the PP.

Disagree with the preachy and judgmental statements above. We bailed on a solid T1 Capitol Hill school, where we'd been since PreK for our oldest child, for Brent after 2nd grade with lottery luck and have never looked back. Our children have been a lot happier, and far better served by the DCPS curriculum, at the new school since Day 1. Teachers, a principal and fellow students simply can't fix the harsh realities of the nature of multi-generational poverty impacting low SES minority families in our inner cities. The "biases" of the PP are not the issue. A strong principal and teachers, which we had at our T1 school, can't solve enormous societal problems. We burned out on trying to make the T1 school work. The effort grew exhausting, without our children ever being pushed academically, really fitting in socially, or having strong extra curricular options to choose from. At Brent, the oldest child knows that many of her classmates are ahead of her academically, and in the instrumental music classes she takes, and strives to keep up. We're not white and like the diversity at our new school.