Middle and high school on Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Weird that DCPS doesn't care given that research shows poor kids do better when they attend schools with a mix of high performing students. Maintaining high poverty schools will help the achievement gap.

Lack of incentives comments is smart - it explains a lot. Parents need to organize to vote in more visionary pols. This happened in Chicago in the 70s and 80s. As a result, the city set up test-in magnets to rival NYC's. Michelle Obama attended one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird that DCPS doesn't care given that research shows poor kids do better when they attend schools with a mix of high performing students. Maintaining high poverty schools will help the achievement gap.

DCPS does care -- why do you think they have pressured the Wilson feeders to accept as many OOB students as possible over the years?

To keep political heads from rolling over the whiteness of the Deal feeders, and Deal and Wilson themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For 10:03

OSSE releases a DC-wide annual report card, that aggregates demographics and reports on PARCC proficiency for all DCPS and charter school students (obviously it excludes home schooled or private school students) http://results.osse.dc.gov/state/DC

There are 87,343 total students in public and public charter schools in DC. 79% of those students are economically disadvantaged. Only 27% of all students are proficient or advanced in ELA and 25% in math.

For every grade level, no more than 30% of all students are proficient or advanced on PARCC in ELA; for math the high water mark is 37% proficient or advanced in math for all 3rd graders. http://results.osse.dc.gov/state/DC

If you just look only at the performance of non-economically disadvantaged students, the proficient and advanced numbers are 59% for ELA and 56% for math.

10:03 here--thanks for providing these data. Wow, stark numbers here. From what's presented here, I just don't see a very robust argument for creating more challenging programs when the vast majority of the kids are performing so far below where they need to be. Why would any politician push these sorts of programs and risk alienating the rest of the voter base? I don't see it happening, at least not on a large scale, in the near future.

The city has a HUGE incentive to try to get more of the 79% of economically disadvantaged kids to, or closer to proficiency and break the cycle of multi-generational poverty for as many as they can. The children of high SES families will be fine, whether they stay in the city of not. But if we don't provide more of the 79% with a decent education, they will not be employable and we will be trying to educate their economically disadvantaged kids 15-20 years from now.

[Anonymous]

But Wilson isn't going to be an option for much longer. More IB kids are staying at feeder schools. SWW is still an option but will probably be harder to get into there as well. I think DCPS needs to come up with a new plan. More high SES kids are staying in the city providing a great opportunity for the school system to have more balanced schools. DCSPS just needs to be more flexible and needs to understand that no high SES family is going to send kids to high poverty school where most students peform below grade level.

[Anonymous]

Ugh for the last time

If all the people on capitol hill actually went to Eastern you would have a cohort of advanced kids

It's chicken and egg.

And again why should a system care about less than 1% of students vs focusing on the needs of a system with nearly 80% FARMS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For 10:03

OSSE releases a DC-wide annual report card, that aggregates demographics and reports on PARCC proficiency for all DCPS and charter school students (obviously it excludes home schooled or private school students) http://results.osse.dc.gov/state/DC

There are 87,343 total students in public and public charter schools in DC. 79% of those students are economically disadvantaged. Only 27% of all students are proficient or advanced in ELA and 25% in math.

For every grade level, no more than 30% of all students are proficient or advanced on PARCC in ELA; for math the high water mark is 37% proficient or advanced in math for all 3rd graders. http://results.osse.dc.gov/state/DC

If you just look only at the performance of non-economically disadvantaged students, the proficient and advanced numbers are 59% for ELA and 56% for math.

10:03 here--thanks for providing these data. Wow, stark numbers here. From what's presented here, I just don't see a very robust argument for creating more challenging programs when the vast majority of the kids are performing so far below where they need to be. Why would any politician push these sorts of programs and risk alienating the rest of the voter base? I don't see it happening, at least not on a large scale, in the near future.

The city has a HUGE incentive to try to get more of the 79% of economically disadvantaged kids to, or closer to proficiency and break the cycle of multi-generational poverty for as many as they can. The children of high SES families will be fine, whether they stay in the city of not. But if we don't provide more of the 79% with a decent education, they will not be employable and we will be trying to educate their economically disadvantaged kids 15-20 years from now.

10:03 again. And maybe this is the angle that needs to be pushed. Considering the Michelle Obama example above, perhaps a multiracial group of high and low SES parents interested in stronger educational options for all kids could have some traction. But if high SES/white families are seen as pushing such a curriculum to only benefit their own kids, it's probably easier to not take them seriously, since politicians may reason that they're only going to move to VA/MD/elsewhere or go private anyway.

Also, if test-in/advanced options are on the table, criteria for placement should probably *not* rely on test scores, since that will lead to segregated classes, which no politicians want. Instead, other criteria need to be used to ensure that promising kids from low-SES backgrounds also get placed in these programs in sufficient numbers.

Just thinking out loud above. I do think the perception that gentrifiers wanting de facto segregated test-in/advanced options needs to be challenged, though, and it seems relationships need to be formed with lower SES, longtime DC residents who also prioritize education. The optics might go a long way politically, and there could be cross-fertilization of ideas re: integrated, test-in/advanced curricula.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For 10:03

OSSE releases a DC-wide annual report card, that aggregates demographics and reports on PARCC proficiency for all DCPS and charter school students (obviously it excludes home schooled or private school students) http://results.osse.dc.gov/state/DC

There are 87,343 total students in public and public charter schools in DC. 79% of those students are economically disadvantaged. Only 27% of all students are proficient or advanced in ELA and 25% in math.

For every grade level, no more than 30% of all students are proficient or advanced on PARCC in ELA; for math the high water mark is 37% proficient or advanced in math for all 3rd graders. http://results.osse.dc.gov/state/DC

If you just look only at the performance of non-economically disadvantaged students, the proficient and advanced numbers are 59% for ELA and 56% for math.

10:03 here--thanks for providing these data. Wow, stark numbers here. From what's presented here, I just don't see a very robust argument for creating more challenging programs when the vast majority of the kids are performing so far below where they need to be. Why would any politician push these sorts of programs and risk alienating the rest of the voter base? I don't see it happening, at least not on a large scale, in the near future.

The city has a HUGE incentive to try to get more of the 79% of economically disadvantaged kids to, or closer to proficiency and break the cycle of multi-generational poverty for as many as they can. The children of high SES families will be fine, whether they stay in the city of not. But if we don't provide more of the 79% with a decent education, they will not be employable and we will be trying to educate their economically disadvantaged kids 15-20 years from now.

10:03 again. And maybe this is the angle that needs to be pushed. Considering the Michelle Obama example above, perhaps a multiracial group of high and low SES parents interested in stronger educational options for all kids could have some traction. But if high SES/white families are seen as pushing such a curriculum to only benefit their own kids, it's probably easier to not take them seriously, since politicians may reason that they're only going to move to VA/MD/elsewhere or go private anyway.

Also, if test-in/advanced options are on the table, criteria for placement should probably *not* rely on test scores, since that will lead to segregated classes, which no politicians want. Instead, other criteria need to be used to ensure that promising kids from low-SES backgrounds also get placed in these programs in sufficient numbers.

Just thinking out loud above. I do think the perception that gentrifiers wanting de facto segregated test-in/advanced options needs to be challenged, though, and it seems relationships need to be formed with lower SES, longtime DC residents who also prioritize education. The optics might go a long way politically, and there could be cross-fertilization of ideas re: integrated, test-in/advanced curricula.

Thanks for your balanced post. A pan- Ward 6 middle school could have a fuller range of students including those ready for accelerated classes, without having to test in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh for the last time

If all the people on capitol hill actually went to Eastern you would have a cohort of advanced kids

It's chicken and egg.

And again why should a system care about less than 1% of students vs focusing on the needs of a system with nearly 80% FARMS

+1. And almost magically those IB and AP exam scores would go up, and everyone would be cheering the turnaround.

BTW did you know Eastern ALREADY HAS an application track for kids who want more advanced academics in 9th? http://easternhighschooldc.org/intro/accelerated-cohort-eastern-ace/

[Anonymous]

I don't think any high SES parents would mind having their kids attend classes/school with smart kids from low SES background. I know I wouldn't care because all the kids would be smart, motivated students. DCPS could adopt admission standards similar to Chicago. Not an unreasonable ask at all and much more sensible that continuing to maintain high poverty schools with no good options for bright kids from any background.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think any high SES parents would mind having their kids attend classes/school with smart kids from low SES background. I know I wouldn't care because all the kids would be smart, motivated students. DCPS could adopt admission standards similar to Chicago. Not an unreasonable ask at all and much more sensible that continuing to maintain high poverty schools with no good options for bright kids from any background.

Which leads us back to Banneker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think any high SES parents would mind having their kids attend classes/school with smart kids from low SES background. I know I wouldn't care because all the kids would be smart, motivated students. DCPS could adopt admission standards similar to Chicago. Not an unreasonable ask at all and much more sensible that continuing to maintain high poverty schools with no good options for bright kids from any background.

If this were strictly true, then why aren't they at Banneker?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For 10:03

OSSE releases a DC-wide annual report card, that aggregates demographics and reports on PARCC proficiency for all DCPS and charter school students (obviously it excludes home schooled or private school students) http://results.osse.dc.gov/state/DC

There are 87,343 total students in public and public charter schools in DC. 79% of those students are economically disadvantaged. Only 27% of all students are proficient or advanced in ELA and 25% in math.

For every grade level, no more than 30% of all students are proficient or advanced on PARCC in ELA; for math the high water mark is 37% proficient or advanced in math for all 3rd graders. http://results.osse.dc.gov/state/DC

If you just look only at the performance of non-economically disadvantaged students, the proficient and advanced numbers are 59% for ELA and 56% for math.

The low-SES long-term DC residents I know who care about education send their kids to DC Prep, KIPP, and parochial schools; they are also able to get tuition vouchers for private school. They don't necessarily see racial or economic diversity as goals, or as the only/better way for their kids to be successful. The percentage of rich or white students at their schools is not a marker of quality. In fact, many thing that high-SES/white parents want (language immersion, few worksheets, little homework, arts integration, play/expedition-based curricula) are not seen as serious enough. What makes for "good" education, from how the classrooms operate to what food is served to how the adults and kids speak to each other, is completely different among those two groups. If you bring rich/white and poor/black folks together and try to create a school that serves them both, it isn't easy to navigate the culture clashes. On an individual level can you find folks of like mind? OF COURSE. But to create a school and the political will to open it and keep it going? Not that easy, and if it were, it would be a charter already.

10:03 here--thanks for providing these data. Wow, stark numbers here. From what's presented here, I just don't see a very robust argument for creating more challenging programs when the vast majority of the kids are performing so far below where they need to be. Why would any politician push these sorts of programs and risk alienating the rest of the voter base? I don't see it happening, at least not on a large scale, in the near future.

The city has a HUGE incentive to try to get more of the 79% of economically disadvantaged kids to, or closer to proficiency and break the cycle of multi-generational poverty for as many as they can. The children of high SES families will be fine, whether they stay in the city of not. But if we don't provide more of the 79% with a decent education, they will not be employable and we will be trying to educate their economically disadvantaged kids 15-20 years from now.

10:03 again. And maybe this is the angle that needs to be pushed. Considering the Michelle Obama example above, perhaps a multiracial group of high and low SES parents interested in stronger educational options for all kids could have some traction. But if high SES/white families are seen as pushing such a curriculum to only benefit their own kids, it's probably easier to not take them seriously, since politicians may reason that they're only going to move to VA/MD/elsewhere or go private anyway.

Also, if test-in/advanced options are on the table, criteria for placement should probably *not* rely on test scores, since that will lead to segregated classes, which no politicians want. Instead, other criteria need to be used to ensure that promising kids from low-SES backgrounds also get placed in these programs in sufficient numbers.

Just thinking out loud above. I do think the perception that gentrifiers wanting de facto segregated test-in/advanced options needs to be challenged, though, and it seems relationships need to be formed with lower SES, longtime DC residents who also prioritize education. The optics might go a long way politically, and there could be cross-fertilization of ideas re: integrated, test-in/advanced curricula.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For 10:03

OSSE releases a DC-wide annual report card, that aggregates demographics and reports on PARCC proficiency for all DCPS and charter school students (obviously it excludes home schooled or private school students) http://results.osse.dc.gov/state/DC

There are 87,343 total students in public and public charter schools in DC. 79% of those students are economically disadvantaged. Only 27% of all students are proficient or advanced in ELA and 25% in math.

For every grade level, no more than 30% of all students are proficient or advanced on PARCC in ELA; for math the high water mark is 37% proficient or advanced in math for all 3rd graders. http://results.osse.dc.gov/state/DC

If you just look only at the performance of non-economically disadvantaged students, the proficient and advanced numbers are 59% for ELA and 56% for math.

10:03 here--thanks for providing these data. Wow, stark numbers here. From what's presented here, I just don't see a very robust argument for creating more challenging programs when the vast majority of the kids are performing so far below where they need to be. Why would any politician push these sorts of programs and risk alienating the rest of the voter base? I don't see it happening, at least not on a large scale, in the near future.

The city has a HUGE incentive to try to get more of the 79% of economically disadvantaged kids to, or closer to proficiency and break the cycle of multi-generational poverty for as many as they can. The children of high SES families will be fine, whether they stay in the city of not. But if we don't provide more of the 79% with a decent education, they will not be employable and we will be trying to educate their economically disadvantaged kids 15-20 years from now.

10:03 again. And maybe this is the angle that needs to be pushed. Considering the Michelle Obama example above, perhaps a multiracial group of high and low SES parents interested in stronger educational options for all kids could have some traction. But if high SES/white families are seen as pushing such a curriculum to only benefit their own kids, it's probably easier to not take them seriously, since politicians may reason that they're only going to move to VA/MD/elsewhere or go private anyway.

Also, if test-in/advanced options are on the table, criteria for placement should probably *not* rely on test scores, since that will lead to segregated classes, which no politicians want. Instead, other criteria need to be used to ensure that promising kids from low-SES backgrounds also get placed in these programs in sufficient numbers.

Just thinking out loud above. I do think the perception that gentrifiers wanting de facto segregated test-in/advanced options needs to be challenged, though, and it seems relationships need to be formed with lower SES, longtime DC residents who also prioritize education. The optics might go a long way politically, and there could be cross-fertilization of ideas re: integrated, test-in/advanced curricula.

The low-SES long-term DC residents I know who care about education send their kids to DC Prep, KIPP, and parochial schools; they are also able to get tuition vouchers for private school. They don't necessarily see racial or economic diversity as goals, or as the only/better way for their kids to be successful. The percentage of rich or white students at their schools is not a marker of quality. In fact, many thing that high-SES/white parents want (language immersion, few worksheets, little homework, arts integration, play/expedition-based curricula) are not seen as serious enough. What makes for "good" education, from how the classrooms operate to what food is served to how the adults and kids speak to each other, is completely different among those two groups. If you bring rich/white and poor/black folks together and try to create a school that serves them both, it isn't easy to navigate the culture clashes. On an individual level can you find folks of like mind? OF COURSE. But to create a school and the political will to open it and keep it going? Not that easy, and if it were, it would be a charter already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think any high SES parents would mind having their kids attend classes/school with smart kids from low SES background. I know I wouldn't care because all the kids would be smart, motivated students. DCPS could adopt admission standards similar to Chicago. Not an unreasonable ask at all and much more sensible that continuing to maintain high poverty schools with no good options for bright kids from any background.

If this were strictly true, then why aren't they at Banneker?

b/c white fragility is real

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For 10:03

OSSE releases a DC-wide annual report card, that aggregates demographics and reports on PARCC proficiency for all DCPS and charter school students (obviously it excludes home schooled or private school students) http://results.osse.dc.gov/state/DC

There are 87,343 total students in public and public charter schools in DC. 79% of those students are economically disadvantaged. Only 27% of all students are proficient or advanced in ELA and 25% in math.

For every grade level, no more than 30% of all students are proficient or advanced on PARCC in ELA; for math the high water mark is 37% proficient or advanced in math for all 3rd graders. http://results.osse.dc.gov/state/DC

If you just look only at the performance of non-economically disadvantaged students, the proficient and advanced numbers are 59% for ELA and 56% for math.

10:03 here--thanks for providing these data. Wow, stark numbers here. From what's presented here, I just don't see a very robust argument for creating more challenging programs when the vast majority of the kids are performing so far below where they need to be. Why would any politician push these sorts of programs and risk alienating the rest of the voter base? I don't see it happening, at least not on a large scale, in the near future.

The city has a HUGE incentive to try to get more of the 79% of economically disadvantaged kids to, or closer to proficiency and break the cycle of multi-generational poverty for as many as they can. The children of high SES families will be fine, whether they stay in the city of not. But if we don't provide more of the 79% with a decent education, they will not be employable and we will be trying to educate their economically disadvantaged kids 15-20 years from now.

10:03 again. And maybe this is the angle that needs to be pushed. Considering the Michelle Obama example above, perhaps a multiracial group of high and low SES parents interested in stronger educational options for all kids could have some traction. But if high SES/white families are seen as pushing such a curriculum to only benefit their own kids, it's probably easier to not take them seriously, since politicians may reason that they're only going to move to VA/MD/elsewhere or go private anyway.

Also, if test-in/advanced options are on the table, criteria for placement should probably *not* rely on test scores, since that will lead to segregated classes, which no politicians want. Instead, other criteria need to be used to ensure that promising kids from low-SES backgrounds also get placed in these programs in sufficient numbers.

Just thinking out loud above. I do think the perception that gentrifiers wanting de facto segregated test-in/advanced options needs to be challenged, though, and it seems relationships need to be formed with lower SES, longtime DC residents who also prioritize education. The optics might go a long way politically, and there could be cross-fertilization of ideas re: integrated, test-in/advanced curricula.

The low-SES long-term DC residents I know who care about education send their kids to DC Prep, KIPP, and parochial schools; they are also able to get tuition vouchers for private school. They don't necessarily see racial or economic diversity as goals, or as the only/better way for their kids to be successful. The percentage of rich or white students at their schools is not a marker of quality. In fact, many thing that high-SES/white parents want (language immersion, few worksheets, little homework, arts integration, play/expedition-based curricula) are not seen as serious enough. What makes for "good" education, from how the classrooms operate to what food is served to how the adults and kids speak to each other, is completely different among those two groups. If you bring rich/white and poor/black folks together and try to create a school that serves them both, it isn't easy to navigate the culture clashes. On an individual level can you find folks of like mind? OF COURSE. But to create a school and the political will to open it and keep it going? Not that easy, and if it were, it would be a charter already.

except we DO have integrated and successful schools: Latin, Basis, Walls, Wilson, and lots of charters on the elementary level. Black parents may send their kids to KIPP because it's the best option the have (if they can't move cities).